This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Jeff, would you be interested in having a few extra buttons on your toolbar? Tim Vickers 05:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
As a comment on this, I know you'll get criticised about your low number of mainspace edits. This might not be such an issue as it usually is since your main effort is on templates and commons. However, if you want to wait until you have more mainspace experience, we can postpone the nomination for a few months. At the moment I'd give you a 50/50 chance of passing RfA, but if you were to spend a while doing some mainspace maintenance - perhaps vandal patrol using TWINKLE - you'd be sure to pass. Anyway, its your decision. Tim Vickers 21:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:AT&T Inc. horizontal logo.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:SpamCop.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 23:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Would you please review your comments in Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:SpamCop, given the fact that Category:SpamCop had existed for a long time, since before creation logging, per this log? Thanks! — Jeff G. ( talk| contribs) 19:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the edit I carried out was not a mistake...the article starts with "Dana International. Dana is" when in fact it should just continue..."Dana International (Born blah blah blah) is a....." please restore my edit -- 81.159.176.27 13:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Although it appears to be vandalisim, the reverts you did were of the user removing info that came from an episode that was gotten erly by hacking Nick's website. Would you be able to undo your reverts? The Placebo Effect 06:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I see you've reverted a perfectly reasonable edit according to your own personal wishes. Of course, which criticisms are "silly" or "little" is a matter of opinion. I have mine, and I won't allow you to change it; you have yours, and I don't care to try change it. However, there are two things about which you are unclear: The first is the definition of the word libel, and its real-world ramifications; nothing I've written here on Wikipedia constitutes libel, and even if it did, it wouldn't concern you unless what I wrote was libelous against you, or, if you're an attorney in my state, libelous against your client. The second thing about which you are unclear is that an article about Jar Jar Binks is not the place for information about the character Watto. It's topically irrelevant. And that's just a fact. 71.239.133.107 07:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Please leave me alone. Thanks. 71.239.133.107 08:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Image:Covad Logo.PNG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with no fair use rationale uploaded after May 4, 2006 which has been tagged as not having a rationale for more than 7 days.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:Image:Covad Logo.PNG|the article's talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. •
Lawrence Cohen
14:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Jeff. I noticed that you recently placed a number of messages, and performed a number of reversions, on this user's talk page, so I would like to discuss this issue with you. This user's attitude is, to say the least, quite belligerent and guarrelsome, and it is impossible to communicate with him. His attitude of ownership of his talk page is completely at odds with Wikipedia policies, and his overall demeanor violates the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:CIVIL. Of course, I am not really telling you anything you do not know already. What I am getting at, then, is do you think this rises to the level of seriousness that I should take it to ANI? I do not like wasting administrator's time with minor matters, but this user's snarky attitude is at odds with the project we are attempting here. I would love to hear your opinion, given the fact that you have had direct dealings with the chap. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 15:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Just dropping off a quick note, thanks for your attention to this, even if we didn't exactly see eye-to-eye on it. If they should get a bit more belligerent, again, once they're out of the limelight, feel free to drop a note. – Luna Santin ( talk) 18:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jeff G, How do you do? Thank you for your advice. Although I think that you have already noticed something, I want to explain the case of Gageo Reef.
Rixiang Reef was created by Yeahsoo at 18:11, 8 May 2007 UTC. But Surehoped3 has moved it to Gageo Reef by cut-n-paste. This editing is with no consensus and lacking some requirements on WP:RM. Of course, there is also a problem of GFDL, because editing history is cut by that method.
And RFCU showed that Surehoped3 was a sockpuppet of Bason0 who was blocked indefinitely. Then I and administrators have reverted all edits by his/her sockpuppets. [1]
As per above mentioned reasons, I think that it is not a edit war, but restoring from vandalism. I hope that you understand my circumstances. Thanks. -- Nightshadow28 ( talk) 13:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression the caption improved the picture. Perhaps your definition of vandalism is not universal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.130.145 ( talk) 13:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I used an edit summary, and I think the logic of my removal was utterly sensible - the article had Ellison's participation in a civil rights march listed as a controversy. This seemed ridiculous. Now, what to do with that sentence is another question - perhaps it should have been moved instead of removed. But my edit used an edit summary, and to revert it with automated tools and leave a vandalism warning on my talk page is utterly unreasonable. Please remember that the right to edit from an IP address is an m:Foundation issue, and harassing IP editors with talk page messages that are inaccurate and would never be used against established and logged-in editors (i.e. if I were logged into my 2004-era admin account right now instead of just using my IP) is unacceptable. 24.250.193.241 ( talk) 04:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Why did you revert my reversion of deletion vandalism to Caesar (video game) by 67.163.2.230 in this edit? Would you please consider reversing your action? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry, but my reversion of deletion vandalism to Caesar (video game) is actually due to my mistake. I have already reverted the article back to your previous edit. Sorry for the inconvenience that have may caused you. E Wing ( talk) 02:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you should be a bit more conservative with u4 warnings. The purpose of the series of warnings is so that the user has several increasingly severe warnings, and thus a chance to stop, before he is blocked. Going straight to u4 after a bot does a u1 is not how the warning system should work. I (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, although see my comment here. AndyJones ( talk) 20:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeff G.. I'm currently in the process of a building up a page for Universal Studios Florida's former Studio Tour, The Universal Florida Studio Tour, And i'm in desperate need of a ride video of the tour to post on the article, Would you happen to have any? Please respond with a message back to my talk page, Or post a video of the Tour on the article, First, And Then send me a message. Thanks-- 5VH9 ( talk) 01:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, Thanks for trying. I understand that you were confused about me posting this message. As i said before (Above) "I'm in desperate need of a ride video...". I've been asking most users for a video, and i just happened to ask you. Thank You-- 5VH9 ( talk) 01:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure the message you let on my page was only motivated by the will to make things well. Yet it is inappropriate as the real problem is in fact the floating IP which is currently vandalising the article. If you read the talk page of the article, you'll understand what I mean. PierreLarcin & floating IP between 84.100.**.** and 84.102.**.** are the same personn, banned for life on the French WP and blocked several times here. The best thing to do is instead to ask for the IP to be blocked if you see him vandalizing. Regards. -- Bombastus ( talk) 19:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you answered a question or two there, so if you know the answer to this I'd appreciate it. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 22:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Jeff, would you be interested in having a few extra buttons on your toolbar? Tim Vickers 05:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
As a comment on this, I know you'll get criticised about your low number of mainspace edits. This might not be such an issue as it usually is since your main effort is on templates and commons. However, if you want to wait until you have more mainspace experience, we can postpone the nomination for a few months. At the moment I'd give you a 50/50 chance of passing RfA, but if you were to spend a while doing some mainspace maintenance - perhaps vandal patrol using TWINKLE - you'd be sure to pass. Anyway, its your decision. Tim Vickers 21:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:AT&T Inc. horizontal logo.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:SpamCop.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 23:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Would you please review your comments in Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:SpamCop, given the fact that Category:SpamCop had existed for a long time, since before creation logging, per this log? Thanks! — Jeff G. ( talk| contribs) 19:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the edit I carried out was not a mistake...the article starts with "Dana International. Dana is" when in fact it should just continue..."Dana International (Born blah blah blah) is a....." please restore my edit -- 81.159.176.27 13:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Although it appears to be vandalisim, the reverts you did were of the user removing info that came from an episode that was gotten erly by hacking Nick's website. Would you be able to undo your reverts? The Placebo Effect 06:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I see you've reverted a perfectly reasonable edit according to your own personal wishes. Of course, which criticisms are "silly" or "little" is a matter of opinion. I have mine, and I won't allow you to change it; you have yours, and I don't care to try change it. However, there are two things about which you are unclear: The first is the definition of the word libel, and its real-world ramifications; nothing I've written here on Wikipedia constitutes libel, and even if it did, it wouldn't concern you unless what I wrote was libelous against you, or, if you're an attorney in my state, libelous against your client. The second thing about which you are unclear is that an article about Jar Jar Binks is not the place for information about the character Watto. It's topically irrelevant. And that's just a fact. 71.239.133.107 07:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Please leave me alone. Thanks. 71.239.133.107 08:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Image:Covad Logo.PNG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with no fair use rationale uploaded after May 4, 2006 which has been tagged as not having a rationale for more than 7 days.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:Image:Covad Logo.PNG|the article's talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. •
Lawrence Cohen
14:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Jeff. I noticed that you recently placed a number of messages, and performed a number of reversions, on this user's talk page, so I would like to discuss this issue with you. This user's attitude is, to say the least, quite belligerent and guarrelsome, and it is impossible to communicate with him. His attitude of ownership of his talk page is completely at odds with Wikipedia policies, and his overall demeanor violates the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:CIVIL. Of course, I am not really telling you anything you do not know already. What I am getting at, then, is do you think this rises to the level of seriousness that I should take it to ANI? I do not like wasting administrator's time with minor matters, but this user's snarky attitude is at odds with the project we are attempting here. I would love to hear your opinion, given the fact that you have had direct dealings with the chap. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 15:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Just dropping off a quick note, thanks for your attention to this, even if we didn't exactly see eye-to-eye on it. If they should get a bit more belligerent, again, once they're out of the limelight, feel free to drop a note. – Luna Santin ( talk) 18:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jeff G, How do you do? Thank you for your advice. Although I think that you have already noticed something, I want to explain the case of Gageo Reef.
Rixiang Reef was created by Yeahsoo at 18:11, 8 May 2007 UTC. But Surehoped3 has moved it to Gageo Reef by cut-n-paste. This editing is with no consensus and lacking some requirements on WP:RM. Of course, there is also a problem of GFDL, because editing history is cut by that method.
And RFCU showed that Surehoped3 was a sockpuppet of Bason0 who was blocked indefinitely. Then I and administrators have reverted all edits by his/her sockpuppets. [1]
As per above mentioned reasons, I think that it is not a edit war, but restoring from vandalism. I hope that you understand my circumstances. Thanks. -- Nightshadow28 ( talk) 13:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression the caption improved the picture. Perhaps your definition of vandalism is not universal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.130.145 ( talk) 13:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I used an edit summary, and I think the logic of my removal was utterly sensible - the article had Ellison's participation in a civil rights march listed as a controversy. This seemed ridiculous. Now, what to do with that sentence is another question - perhaps it should have been moved instead of removed. But my edit used an edit summary, and to revert it with automated tools and leave a vandalism warning on my talk page is utterly unreasonable. Please remember that the right to edit from an IP address is an m:Foundation issue, and harassing IP editors with talk page messages that are inaccurate and would never be used against established and logged-in editors (i.e. if I were logged into my 2004-era admin account right now instead of just using my IP) is unacceptable. 24.250.193.241 ( talk) 04:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Why did you revert my reversion of deletion vandalism to Caesar (video game) by 67.163.2.230 in this edit? Would you please consider reversing your action? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry, but my reversion of deletion vandalism to Caesar (video game) is actually due to my mistake. I have already reverted the article back to your previous edit. Sorry for the inconvenience that have may caused you. E Wing ( talk) 02:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you should be a bit more conservative with u4 warnings. The purpose of the series of warnings is so that the user has several increasingly severe warnings, and thus a chance to stop, before he is blocked. Going straight to u4 after a bot does a u1 is not how the warning system should work. I (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, although see my comment here. AndyJones ( talk) 20:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeff G.. I'm currently in the process of a building up a page for Universal Studios Florida's former Studio Tour, The Universal Florida Studio Tour, And i'm in desperate need of a ride video of the tour to post on the article, Would you happen to have any? Please respond with a message back to my talk page, Or post a video of the Tour on the article, First, And Then send me a message. Thanks-- 5VH9 ( talk) 01:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, Thanks for trying. I understand that you were confused about me posting this message. As i said before (Above) "I'm in desperate need of a ride video...". I've been asking most users for a video, and i just happened to ask you. Thank You-- 5VH9 ( talk) 01:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure the message you let on my page was only motivated by the will to make things well. Yet it is inappropriate as the real problem is in fact the floating IP which is currently vandalising the article. If you read the talk page of the article, you'll understand what I mean. PierreLarcin & floating IP between 84.100.**.** and 84.102.**.** are the same personn, banned for life on the French WP and blocked several times here. The best thing to do is instead to ask for the IP to be blocked if you see him vandalizing. Regards. -- Bombastus ( talk) 19:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you answered a question or two there, so if you know the answer to this I'd appreciate it. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 22:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)