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

Rihanna

Please read Talk:Rihanna#Genre. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I and other user discussed a few times for not agreeing with the gender of the singer. I used reliable sources and the [User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult]] constantly remove. Vítor & Rihanna (msg) 23:33 22 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done, I have read that section. I didn't see anything there about "gender", though. :)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou Jef

I will do as you suggested. I was removing the edits made by a banned user as per the directions of experienced administrators. I just dug into his doing and was removing all the edits that he did.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit Summaries could have explained why you were doing that.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jef, I have edited those pages again with info pasted in the discussion page as directed. I am new commer and so is just learning my ways around. I hope you understand--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Road Runner (ISP) Logo With Character Cropped.PNG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Road Runner (ISP) Logo With Character Cropped.PNG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. §hep^Talk 02:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I have added a Non-free use rationale here.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. §hep^Talk 06:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Spin stiffness deletion request

Hi Jeff. You recently requested deletion of Spin stiffness under criterion G5, creation by a banned user. The user in question was username softblocked, which means there was just a minor problem with their username and he/she is still welcome to edit the encyclopedia under a different username, or anonymously. It's not block evasion if the user subsequently edits as an IP, and the user certainly isn't banned, which is a deeper issue than merely blocking. All in all, the whole situation was little WP:BITE-ier than it needed to be. From all indications, this user seems to have good intentions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I bit, but it seemed to me that the article was insufficiently referenced, and other editors thought it could never be an article.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

King's Kids Johannesburg

This article can get deleted the founder and national director of King's Kids Johannesburg doesn't want this dispute to go on he has had enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobScheurwater (talk • contribs) 05:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That person can make that request to Wikipedia:OTRS via the appropriate method on the Wikipedia:Contact us page.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Jacob Westervelt

Please DONT undo my changes in Jacob Westervelt! The version that I deleted was written by myself in a subpage of my user-profile... and Im still working on this article. 6 hours ago I talked to another user because of the wrong title of the existing article (stub) about Jacob AARON Westervelt and I informed this user that Im working on a new version of this article (but I didnt tell him, that Im writing this article in my subpage user:Rectilinium/test). But he actually found my "Sandbox" and copied my article to the "Jacob Westervelt"-website even if it isnt finished at all (it seems this was a misunderstanding). As you surely noticed, Im not a native english speaker, and it always takes me a long time until I can finish an english written article, because it always needs comprehensive editing before I can upload it. I will finish the new Jacob Aaron Westervelt-text as soon as possible and probabely upload it within a week (if the article is renamed into JACOB AARON WESTERVELT by an administrator). I inserted the old version of the Westervelt-article now and Im going to finish my new article offline now (in WORD), so that I can write the article privately.--Rectilinium (talk) 06:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

OK.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Links

This in NOT vandalism, I'm new to editing in Wikipedia and am unsure how to contact you so if this is an inappropriate venue my apologies. Anyway, I'd like to speak to you about the deletion of my links on some of the pages. You must be under the impression that the links go to copyrighted material (it's all public domain) or are somehow inappropriate. I've read the guidelines for posting links and disagree with you. Yes, I am the owner of the videos, but I fail to see how that matters: I am linking relevant videos to pages that do not have any video links yet. I like Wikipedia a lot, use it on a regular basis and would never knowingly cause vandalism, so I took offence to your accusations. I only wish to link my Youtube videos--which are all public domain--to pages that don't already have some video link (Youtube, Google Video, Archive, etc.). You have my word I didn't mean to cause vandalism. Please tell me what I am doing that is causing so much trouble becuase from my perspective I am HELPING Wikipedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MSPaintnerd (talk • contribs) 21:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please follow the advice of XLinkBot (talk · contribs) and SineBot (talk · contribs).   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy

This in NOT vandalism. You might try looking up the word Jeff. For starters and according to Mirriam-Websters "vandalism" is "willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property". This definition has been in use since 1798. It gives me pause to ask, just how educated are you anyway? When you recklessly and so freely deploy use of the word "vandalism" it shows a clear disrepect for people posting "facts" while essentially slandering the poster to boot. Speaking for myself I like many others are somewhat new to Wiki and I too am unsure how to contact you regarding this issue you so freely declare to be "vandalism". There are zillions of protocols and Wiki certainly doesn't help itself as it relates to enabling the neophyte.

In my posts about Senator Kennedy I posted two facts and yet you chose to label those facts vandalism? Fact one is that the Daily Kos has a Wiki style bio sketch of Kennedy that is so replete with diliberate omissions of his lifetime experiences, that any thinking person should have access to at least one other resource (i.e.; Wiki) so they can learn about all his public life and to also compare how propanganda is being foisted on non-thinkers by those that want all in America to behave like bleating sheep. Did you bother to go the Daily Kos site and confirm this "fact" for yourself? IF you haven't, you might find it highly enlightening.

Second fact. There is a movement afoot in America to deny Senator Kennedy any further undeserved accolades (such as being "Knighted", an honor classically reserved for a Patriot and warrior - some of us take honors such as Knighthood or being Sainted seriously because they are suppossed to recognize extraordinary lifetime achievements) including being credited with mentoring a National Health Care Plan. There is a clear and distinct interest in such a national plan being named after Mary Jo Kopechne in honor of her memory and in respect of the sacrifice endured by her family following her unnecessary death many years ago when National Health Care was first being debated.

In my opinion you cannot ascribe the label "vandalism" to these posts as though you are "all knowing". Wiki's essential spirit is that which is exactly at the root of the word vandalism, that is public property. There can be no destruction or defacement when facts are posted for the public's evaluation. I would submit that "vandalism" exists when despots try to obfuscate the truth. Just as in Farenheit 451 when government burned all the books so it's citizens could only accept a one mind propoganda, this type of unwelcome censorship without ease of recourse is un-American. IF the truth bothers any Wiki editoral supervisor, then they shouldn't have the position of responsibility that they have been elevated to. IF Wiki posters are not free to post facts, then Wiki, in and of itself, is also a propoganda puppet and it's founding purpose is lost.

User:Pritch4398 —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC).

If you have reliable sources that we can verify, your information is welcome.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jeff. First fact. IF you go to the Daily Kos and then click on their Wiki (aka dkosopedia) in the right hand column and enter Edward Kennedy in the search box here's what you get:

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Edward_Kennedy

You'll note the extreme lack of life experiences as reported in the Daily Kos Wiki vs this Wikipedia site. Interesting to note is that dkosopedia freely uses some of the Wikipedia opening text "word for word" but then, in an almost abrupt manner, ceases providing much more bio info including anything regarding his father, mother and eldest brother Joseph, all who were famous and/or extremely well known in their own right. His brother Joseph gave his life for his country in World War II accepting a dangerous "volunteers only" mission from which he did not survive. I would easily term his brother Joseph a Patriot and his citation clearly reflects his orientation and acceptance of "duty". I would submit that few persons would learn much from this Daily Kos bio version of Senator Kennedy, particularly compared with the derth of information found at this site. In fact, I find it hard to conclude that anyone, but the most ignorant of the ignorant could credit the Daily Kos with having provided a complete bio of Senator Kennedy. It was a result of this glaring lack of information and their clear intent to promote Senator Kennedy in the most favorable of lights that I wrote my first post inviting "inquiring minds" to compare their fantasy against Wikipedia's reality. I tried to write my first post on this subject as neutrally as I possibly could, as admittedly, I personally have no respect for Senator Edward Kennedy.

I'll get back to you regarding the second fact.

Pritch4398Pritch4398 (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

dKosopedia is not a reliable source. Can you quote a reliable source that has criticized dKosopedia's lack of coverage of Senator Kennedy?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Fact Two and the issue of a National Health Care Plan: Providing a point of reference, I entered the life and health insurance business in 1969 in Phoenix, Arizona (AZ) and am now closing in on a 40 year career. National health care was being debated then when you could be hospitalized for a mere $8 a day room and board and health insurance costs were minimal and affordable for most American’s. In the same year, 1969, Mary Jo Kopechne’s life was tragically cut short, she being a long time committed political intern seeking to contribute in her own way to help improve America. In October of 1970, about a year after her passing TIME magazine published this article, one of but many that are available to research in public libraries and/or LEXUS-NEXUS:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,942350,00.html

Mary Jo had previously worked for various politico’s including the bold championing of Civil Rights in the early 1960’s. While the wrongs of the day were being worked on so as to be corrected as best as possible, so was the issue of health insurance for everyone, a form of Civil Right unto itself as the system of then and still today, discriminates between the have’s and have not’s. Despite Mary Jo’s father being in the insurance business at the time of her death, it is expressly because of the ideals that Mary Jo Kopechne stood for, that she is a fine candidate to name a new National Health Care Plan in honor of.

Irony of ironies exists that in a mere two weeks following the death of Mary Jo in 1969, Senator Kennedy introduced some of the first legislation regarding a National Health Care Plan when it was estimated that only 20 - 22% of the American population was uninsured compared to today wherein estimates have doubled and range from 40 to 45% of American citizens not being insured. Clearly giving Senator Kennedy the accolade for finally possibly achieving National Health Care when he has been a part of the debate and legislative process for 39 years (nearly 4 decades) and all the while being unable to achieve such a plan for all American’s clearly demonstrates that he is too polarizing for most American’s to get behind so this legislation can finally be adopted. Mary Jo Kopechne on the other hand, is a very reasonable candidate to honorably name a new National Health Care system after; such a national plan represents her youth and the ideals she stood up for, qualities that American’s can easily relate to.

Pritch4398Pritch4398 (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Whose idea was it to name the new system after Mary Jo Kopechne? Wouldn't that be better explored in her article, Mary Jo Kopechne?

Ray Davies

I didn't vandalize anything. I corrected a spelling. ````HM211980 —Preceding unsigned comment added by HM211980 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January 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 Wikipedia: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) 19:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hinduism and science

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hinduism and science, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduism and science. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. andy (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for the notice.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

small technical request

Could you update the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions with info that user:Greg park avenue was blocked at the same time as Boodlesthecat by Ryan? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done via this edit.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hey Jeff how do i add a pictture —Preceding unsigned comment added by WildGoal (talk • contribs) 03:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:IMAGE.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Mistaken Vandalism

Excuse me Jeff, I find it insulting to accuse my last edit to the sound article to be considered vandalism. It was not nonconstructive and it was to the best of my knowledge. Therefore, you do not have the right to deny my editing privileges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.32.14.150 (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It was unnecessary duplication, in the wrong place.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

IP Sockpuppets

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my main page. It seems that 74.208.122.65 has been blocked. Still, if you look at the IP addresses I list, this guy uses multiple anonymous IP addresses - is there any way to stop this? Looks like he uses:

• 67.215.232.114
• 216.108.235.72
• 85.17.146.194.

That's just based on the vandalism to my own userpage (which before this, had never been vandalized before). Thanks. GoCuse44 (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. You may report that behavior at WP:ANI.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please pay more attention

Before warning other users about Wikipedia policy. I have not, nor would I ever remove a speedy tag from an article I created myself. Check the article history again on Cool kids cooking and you'll notice that I, in fact, did not create it, but added that tag in the first place (and also had already warned the original author - User talk:Caleb 26 - about removing the template). Thank you. KhalfaniKhaldun 06:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, sorry, huggle had a race condition.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:613kpiggy

Hi. Huggle templates don't always fit the situation. In 613kpiggy's case, you have a busy new editor who's made several hundred useful, good faith edits. Now he/she sees some of his work threatened by deletion. Having spent all his time here building articles rather than on process (deletions, warnings, recent changes, etc.), he doesn' realize that deleting a CfD template is a big no-no. Hitting him with a vandalism warning, however lukewarm, won't help him be a better editor and participant -- it may just frustrate him. I encourage you to take the opportunity to educate him and work with him. Bringing along one motivated, productive editor who may go onto to make 1000s of edits and build our content up is priceless.

I made some follow-up comments you may want to look at. In the meantime, thanks for all your work here and on other projects keeping the mobs at bay!
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

PS, We could really use your spam-savvy at WT:WPSPAM -- check it out.

Thanks for the pointers, I have added to all three discussions from your first two paragraphs and will check out WT:WPSPAM when I get a chance.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocking editing?!?!?

Hi Jeff

Could you please explain who you are and why you are threatening to block me from editing.

Where is your contribution to the discussion apart from the threat! --Smg1965 (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a Veteran Editor with over 27,000 edits under my belt, sometimes involved in Recent Changes Patrol using Huggle. At 17:37 (UTC) yesterday, during one of my patrols, I noticed this edit, in which you restored external links that Charlesdrakew felt were spam (as evidenced by that editor's Edit Summary for this edit). I am trying, as was Charlesdrakew, to protect Wikipedia from inappropriate external links, as we have been explaining to you on your user talk page, so to that end, one minute later I reverted your restoration and issued you standard warning Template:uw-hugglespam3.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly Jeff the issue is whether I am a spammer or not as labelled by Charlesdrakew who from the moment I added the link deleted it without any discussion and labelled me a spammer. Viewing my history on Wikipedia it is clear that I am NOT a spammer but a relative Newbie.

Secondly the comments on my user talk page suggest I have not read the spamming guidelines. Just because Charlesdrakew and you think it is Spam does NOT make it so. It should be up for discussion as the guidelines are not black and white and I do not consider the link to be spamming because:

• The site gives a history on the Manor House and the estate which is also relative to Nutley and Ashdown Forest, and also provides a good source of imagery of the area not contained on the Wiki
• I have visited Pippingford Park during one of their events and at no time was solicited for an entry fee or charge for car parking but was free to roam un-hindered
• The website provides no "point of sale", you can't purchase anything via the website
• Any commercial activity Pippingford offers is of interest to a small majority of people in a specific market, as with any Historic Manor, Estate, Garden etc in Britain and the World they have to create an income to survive, this should not detract from it's historic and local importance. E.g. The Tower of London's Wiki page has an external link to Commercial website

Lastly I would be very happy to have this issue taken to the Wikipedia admins for a decision which I would respect. I would at the same time like them to look at the conduct of Charlesdrakew and yourself regarding the authoritarian attitude towards ordinary pedestrian users of Wikipedia.

• Should Charlesdrakew be able to label myself and any other users as spammers
• Should Charlesdrakew be able to delete additions without any discussion beforehand
• Should Charlesdrakew be able to delete existing content without any discussion (the "Nutley Social Club" link added by another user) to justify my link deletion
• Should Charlesdrakew be able to vacillate on HIS decisions as to which links should stay and be removed
• Should Charlesdrakew be able "poke fun" at myself and other users
• Should Charlesdrakew be able continuously undo changes without receiving any warnings as I myself did
• Should you Jeff be able to threaten to ban my editing without discussion
• Do you Jeff really think the link I have added and tried to justify politely is "Vandalism"?
• If I was a spammer would I enter into so much discussion about this point and waste my time
• Did you Jeff actually read the discussion on this before issuing your threat!

Once again I added the link to Pippingford Park in good faith as I was impressed by the area as far as free accessibility and its beauty and thought it would be beneficial to the Nutley page. It seems ordinary users are at the mercy of seasoned users who use their knowledge of Wikipedia to block any open access and discussion. I find this incredibly sad and abusive! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smg1965 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried posting that information to Talk:Nutley, East Sussex or otherwise discussing it with Charlesdrakew? You should mention such discussion if/when you put one or both of those links back.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have mentioned the above on the Talk:Nutley, East Sussex page the latest addition being longer, but I can see no resolution when Charlesdrakew has taken this inconsistent attitude of "tit for tat" and a dose of "poking fun" with not scope for real discussion on a subject which is not black and white. I'm getting tired of this and it makes me think Wikipedia is as open to user contributions as the Chinese Media! If I knew Wikipedia as well as Charlesdrakew I could have issued similar "template" warnings, instead I undo his deletion he redoes it, I undo it he redoes it and then I get the warning. This doesn't seem fair or democratic! --Smg1965 (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

User page vandalism

Jeff, thanks for rv the vandalism to my user page. It was my first. I feel like I must be doing something right :) Later, Tiderolls 23:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my userpage....

...back in January. :-( Sorry I didn't get around to thanking you until now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Live long and prosper!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sueng-hui Cho

How to my edits to this article constitute as vandalism? I made those edits with good intentions and facts behind me. My work is most certainly not 'defacement'. Now please discontinue from reverting my work. 24.18.115.169 (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was relying on TeaDrinker's judgement in this edit.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)