Jump to content

User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2008/January

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You're invited!

...to the next New York City Meetup!

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday January 13th, Columbia University area
Last: 11/3/2007
This box: view • talk • edit

In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

editing

Hello, first off i would like to say that i like wikipedia because if it is used the right way, it brings together knowledge and expertise from others and we can learn so much. i am new to wikipedia as far as editing goes, so i am still trying to get things right. With that said, i was very concerned when i make some corrections and then when i went to look at them later on, they where deleted because you identified them as "vandalism'. I was simply shocked because all i did was correctly change the year "The Love Bug" was highest grossing film from 1968 to 1969. I guess i should have cited the credible sources, but sir i do not think this is vandalism, Wikipedia to me should be a credible source, and i was just trying to fix someone else's mistake. I apoligize for any confusion, i was just thinking for the best intentions for this encyclopedia. I am now afraid to actually do anything on here anymore, because i don't want to be marked as a vandal, i am just trying to help. thank you and any advice for a beginner would be very helpful, i am considering an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.252.228 (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misidentified your edits. What was your source (or what were your sources) for that information? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

first the Walt Disney Company, as stated on their website, and the love bug dvd. it is also mentioned on the internet movie data base, for the movie was infact released nationwide on March 13, 1969. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.252.228 (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I fixed it, sorry!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello, nice to meet you. I disagree with your revert of my edit and that it was vandalism. I was removing some information that is contradictable, and probably erroneous, no matter if the sources are usually reliable or not. What is wrong with deleting possible errors? 70.101.182.149 (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please document your findings in the article's talk page. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Request

Hi Jeff, I was aware of your response last month and it was definitely helpful. If I come across other image-related issues on Commons, I'll be sure to leave you a message. Thanks heaps for your input! Spellcast (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove that link to CVBS information? It looks like it was accidentally removed along with another link that was spam, which is why I put it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.238.115 (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, I took KelleyCook's word that it was spam.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Your assistance please

Can you assist me in filing a request for mediation for Peter Yarrow? I have tried posting on the BLP noticeboard initially, and have gone through extensive discussion on the talk page. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Yarrow -- thank you, --Jkp212 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it might be resolved w/o mediation.... I'll touch base again if I need more help.. Thanks! --Jkp212 (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox

Strictly speaking, it's impossible to vandalise the sandbox. Mainly because it is self-cleaning, but also because we actually ask people to play there rather than elsewhere. Whilst it would be nice if they didn't delete the header, people often will. There are worse places they could be damaging. Please don't worry about it, and please don't report edits to the sandbox to AIV. Thanks! ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 23:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought there was an exception for defamation, and it hasn't been cleaned by OverlordQBot in over 39 hours, since 03:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC).[1]   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Dongs

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC) —The preceding forge signed comment was actually added by 24.174.48.155 (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your forgery is duly noted.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Charles Lahr and Gene Krupa

I have added to these pages by including verifiable links which hereto were not there. I am not adding these links to make any point. Please assume good faith. Please do not remove it again. Charles Lahr and Gene Krupa have been deceased for decades so the BLP is not applicable in any event!John celona (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not advocating that known lengths of incarcerations be included in articles?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly what he's advocating. Edits on this topic should stop til the yarrow RfC is over. An editor who doesn't see it that way has undone your reversions to my edits on Krupa and Lahr. I don't want to violate 3-RR but I hope someone who's not in danger of doing that will reinstate your proper action. David in DC (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
David, thanks for the notice, but I'm evidently not seeing what you're seeing - I'm seeing that my edits [2] and [3] are still on top.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I am certainly advocating that where a verifiable link exists spelling out the sentence or time served of a livingperson, that other editors not be allowed to remove those links from the article as editors have done on the Peter Yarrow page on BLP grounds. Furthermore, since both Krupa and Lahr are deceased the BLP objections by those editors are not applicable to those articles. Nonetheless, 2 editors have seen fit to remove my verifiable links from those 2 pages, notwithstanding that the BLP is not applicable.John celona (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Please learn how threading works here at WP:TALK#Layout. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Please look at Krupa and Lahr Again. David in DC (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Done, thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
And again. Probably not worth the revert war to change yet again, your call. But another notation on the admin noticeboard, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_John_Celona from your perspective, might be nice. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
John celona stated that "The final solution is a hoax" in this edit concerning articles Holocaust and Holocaust denial. He has not backed down from that statement. Holocaust denial is uncivil and offensive.[4]   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That was a sardonic comment in response to another users threats, as the context of that discussion would reveal.John celona (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reverting Johns edits to make a point.

John is a Newbie he has an excuse, But you have been around long enough to know better. I think the idea of including the length of the prison sentence on every article wherein the category of incarcerated celebrities applies is a very good idea, I do not think that Yarrow was a child molester but I do not allow myself to be angered by those that do. I would trust Yarrow to baby sit my grandchildren on any day or night.

Neither you or David have the right to be ordering John around pursuant to the Krupa page or any other page for that matter. So please chill out and take a closer look at your own behavior. You are letting yourself get sucked in to a fight that does not need to be fought. I think we should use the wiki dispute process to settle any and all disputes, don't you ?  : Albion moonlight (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

John celona stated that "The final solution is a hoax" in this edit concerning articles Holocaust and Holocaust denial. He has not backed down from that statement. Holocaust denial is uncivil and offensive.[5]   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That was a sardonic comment in response to another users threats, as the context of that discussion would reveal.John celona (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with him about that but so what ? Wikipedia has no bussiness censoring peoples beliefs. You are just searching for ways to get rid of him and that is unacceptable : 

 Albion moonlight (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming "good faith"

Hello JEFF G, this is VASCO AMARAL from Portugal,

I have been in Wikipedia for about two years, left for about three months because i was fed up with the vandalism and returned now, to find it pretty much in the same state. Believe me, when i call somebody an idiot, i am 100% (not 99%) sure as to what they have been up to, and i will not stay put in this cases. I would very much appreciate if you let me deal with wikivandals my own way, you choose your own.

Regards from Portugal, have a nice week and a good 2008, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your post, for fighting vandals, and for using Edit Summaries when doing so. Would you please consider calling such a person a "vandal", rather than an "IDIOT", and letting your actions speak louder than your Edit Summaries? Doing so would make it appear that you are criticizing the person's actions, rather than their intelligence. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to List of songs in Rock Band

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to List of songs in Rock Band, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 05:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. You are correct, but Taborlechner beat you to reverting me. My edit was reversion of what appeared to be drive-by vandalism, not the subject of a dispute about references for one lineitem in a table. I'm sorry for any inconvenience. OTOH, please WP:DTTR, especially those with {{subst:uw-unsor1}} (the short form of {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}) littering their copious edit histories. Also, you signed my warning, but failed to sign many others as detailed at WP:UW. In addition, all readers should understand that stuff is going to remain unexpanded (or get expanded manually) until I move the HTML comment tags around later today (UTC) or tomorrow to unblank this page in honor of the memory of Wei Wenhua.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thats okay. There had been many edits to the article where users kept adding unsourced material over the past few days. Seems that everyone just likes to add their favorite songs. Given that I'd also like to see some of those songs released too, however, I don't go around adding unsourced material to articles. Anway... it has been corrected as you said. So... nothing else to say on the subject. – Moving along...
You are correct that I didn't sign many of them, however, I do regularly sign my posts. In this case, the ones where I added {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} weren't signed. Guess I was in a rush reverting many edits and just forgot all about it. Anyway, I'll take your advice on that (WP:DTTR).
And by the way (if you haven't noticed in my reply), you can use Template:Tls (containing a lowercase "L") to make {{subst:uw-unsor1}} not render as Wiki code even easier and quicker than typing the "nowiki" tags. So instead of typing <nowiki>{{subst:uw-unsor1}}</nowiki>, type {{tls|uw-unsor1}}. In addition to having less to type, it also adds the Wiki links to the template automatically! How cool is that? Hope that helps. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 07:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm well aware of the use of Template:Tls, but it didn't suit my intended purpose at the time - what actually shows in many of MY Edit Summaries is "{{subst:uw-unsor1}}" (with no wikilinking), but you won't be able to read it that way till later. But first, some sleep...   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism blocks and time limits

Moving your comment from AIV page to here to continue discussion: "I'll never be able to prove that a user saw a level 4 or bv warning unless they edit twice past it, so what's a reasonable amount of time to allow if they only edit once past)"

  • Let them edit two or three times then. Blocks are intended to stop damage to the encyclopedia, not punish users. If they have stopped editing, they have stopped editing. With IPs, there is no guarantee after an extended time (a day or so) that the IP has seen the prior warnings. With registered users, we can assume they have. If Tpir72 continues to make the same problematic edits, then re-report them. If they never edit again, what is the point in blocking them? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC) signed in good faith by Jayron32, but in an HTML comment, so expanded by Jeff G.

Hi Jeff, I am responding to your question on the AIV noticeboard. Generally all that is requred is vandalism a short time after a final warning has been given. If you check the "user contributions" and compare with the edit history of the vandal's page, you can figure out fairly easily if the vandalism happened after the final warning. Let me know if you need more info. Thanks for helping to fight vandalism! Dreadstar † 07:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I took "a short time" to mean one minute to maybe a day (or at least a few hours) based on past experiences with AIV. Jayron32 appears to feel that one minute is too short. I'd like to get some clear direction on this. But first, some sleep...   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Claudine Rhédey von Kis-Rhéde

Hello Jeff, you left a note on my user page (gsandi). I am not quite sure of the reasons, because I did not create the page on Claudine Rhédey von Kis-Rhéde, I just made some corrections to Hungarian placenames mentioned on the page. I am not an expert on Notability issues in the wikipedia, although it is clear that the lady in question was a grandmother of Queen Mary, wife of George V. In monarchist circles this alone would make her notable, but I do not know how much monarchist circles count on the Wikipedia. Also, Hungarians do like to note this minor, but interesting, connection of a Hungarian noblewoman to the British royal family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsandi (talk • contribs) 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I felt it was only right to notify you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User page thanks

Barnstar!!!

I, Sunderland06 hereby award you an Excellent Userpage Barnstar, because you kindly made my userpage look great, and i have done the nav box  Sunderland06  18:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wei Wenhua

This page was blank for 24 hours to honor the memory of Wei Wenhua.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. I encourage Wikipedians who think the same thing to join me in this quiet small way to say to the world: Wikipedians stand with the right of individual everywhere to report on the facts of the world in peace.

China blogger beaten to death by government officials

  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Username change

Hello, Jeff G.

Thank you for your concern regarding my user name. The Wikilink you provided did not work.

I do not mean to sound argumentative, but I would like to keep my current user name. I like it. I am somewhat ignorant about the way things work in Wikipedia, so help me figure this out: were there any editors who felt threatened by my user name or otherwise uncomfortable with it? I assure you that I have no intention of stalking anyone. I came up with this name in jest, not malice. I hope you will rethink your request. Screen stalker (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the bad link, I replaced it.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, but I would rather keep the username, as I said. Screen stalker (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy for the following reason: inappropriate or inflammatory, as it indicates an uncivil action. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to opt for the first option:
When I first registered to be a wikipedia editor I sat in front of my computer and desperately tried to think of a username that wouldn't reveal any of my personal details, but I drew a blank. I tried to think of a name for about twenty minutes, until I thought of the name "Screen stalker," which is used to describe a computer gamer who looks off of an opponent's screen in a network. It is not intended to be provocative or inflammatory. I hope this helps.
Thanks. Screen stalker (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You play computer games. You participate in Wikiproject Palestine. You appear to contribute to articles about and have some concern for Palestinians. And you have managed to keep a cool head. I can imagine other personal details that may apply, and you may want to use as part of your new username, including: your approximate age; your gender; your location; an associated school, team, sport, musical genre, gaming system, or game; etc. The following appear to be available at first blush (play with Special:Listusers to see what isn't available but to get ideas): Gamer Parrot, Gamer Watcher, GamerGuy, GamerBoy, Gamer Dude, Game Man, and GamerWatcher. I hope these give you some ideas.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I know this sounds somewhat bizarre, but I have grown somewhat attached to the name Screen stalker. I have been editing under it for eight and a half months (which technically means I'm only two weeks away from giving birth to it). While it is certainly possible for me to obtain a new username, I would much rather continue editing under the one with which I am familiar, and to which I have grown attached. Screen stalker (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I have referred this matter to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#Screen_stalker.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

False hits at AIV

Your work at fighting vandalism is MUCH appreciated, and I know it is a thankless job. However, lately there have been a lot of "False positive" reports at AIV, and misfiled reports just waste admins time. I don't mean to be rude about it, but its true. In order for an adminsitrator to block an IP address, it needs to be shown that a) the IP address is currently vandalising and b) the IP address has been warned adequately so that there is no doubt the warnings have been seen. Because many (indeed, probably MOST) ISPs reassign IP addresses periodically (some everytime you log on, others whenever they shut down their network for routine maintenance), there is no guarantee that the person warned last month is the same one vandalising today. Of course, if the pattern of vandalism is the same and spreads continuously over a long period of time, it may be able to show that the IP address is relatively static. In most cases however, its OK to warn and wait for an edit or two. My rule of thumb is that any warning older than a week is probably too stale to count, and any warning should be followed by at least 2 vandalisms before we assume they have seen the orange "You have a message" box at the top of the screen. Of course, each case needs to be taken on its own merits, there are cases where IP addresses do show that they need to be blocked even if not currently active, but those are rare, and stand out like a sore thumb. You might want to read this: Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism. Good luck, and keep up the good fight. Your work is definately appreciated. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. I'll go read Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism now.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I've read it, I'm sorry, and I'll be more careful in the future.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, look, don't sweat it too bad. You are doing mostly good work, really. I was a vandalism fighter for a long time before I became an admin. Just be careful, that's all! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page. As you know, the mere act of fighting vandals occasionally makes them take an interest in us. It's nice to see that our fellow vandal slayers are looking out for each other. Doczilla (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your vandalism warning

Hi Jeff, does this edit you made have a context? Replacing a section of an article of a book with "I love this book, I hate soccer"--as the first edit from an IP--deserved the test1 that I gave the user, not the v4 final warning you followed up with. Please see WP:BITE. My apologies if there is some context that I'm missing here, but the IP has only one edit. Darkspots (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it looked like blatant vandalism to me - I try not to encourage hate speech and writing. I tried to create that talk page with {{subst:uw-bv}}, but was rebuffed by an error instead of an edit conflict. Given your concern, I have reverted my addition. Sorry for BITEing, and for any inconvenience.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for taking another look at the user's talk page, I appreciate the consideration. Darkspots (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Toronto entertainment scene

Can I request this done for me, I am interested in a couple of local bands here, and wish to set up summaries for them, where they play and everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.203 (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If the material is properly referenced and not WP:OR, sure. Please sign your posts, use Edit Summaries, and create an account. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

1. How do I create sub-pages. 2. How do I sign my posts? Thanks Dude, Brad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.203 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You can create sub-pages by following the instructions at Wikipedia:User page#How do I create a user subpage?. You can sign your posts by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Signatures#How to sign your posts.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Unless you 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 can no longer help you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

-thanks, but why do you keep rearranging my talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.203 (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I did it because I agree with Precious Roy that people who encounter it need to know what they're dealing with, and to try to help you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I just figured out how to open my own account, which is good because there seems to be some kind of dispute going on that I don't want to be involved in , or associated with. thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.203 (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good, please reply here when you've logged in. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Do I have to use my real first name, or can I make something up? I don't want people knowing where I hang out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.203 (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Username policy. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, you may play with Special:Listusers to see what isn't available but to get ideas.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And also there seems to be a mix-up with whois database, this is not my address! how do I fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.203 (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

142.205.212.203 is certainly the IP Address assigned to the network address translation box nat-cpo-212-203.tdbank.ca that is providing you with Internet access. That IP Address, along with 65,535 others, is assigned to "Toronto Dominion Bank", and that domain name, tdbank.ca, is assigned to "The Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD Bank)".   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

how come people don't have their pictures here? I like to attach a face to a name!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.203 (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Some do, including me. My picture is here. Where is yours? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

hey what do you mean vandalism, this is my page! it does not matter I will have my own account in a few minutes! thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.203 (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You violated my copyright. Then, you threatened to do it again.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry! I will delete it all off, sorry for the misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.203 (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Tag the aurora

I think it's time. Want to zap the aurora? [6] -- SEWilco (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please participate in the discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:AuroraBorealisFromSpace.JPG. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: 142.205.212.203 at AIV

The problem seems more complex than simple "This guy is teh gay HAHAHAH" vandalism, and so should probably be dealt with at WP:ANI instead. Please file a report there, with a detailed account of the problem and diffs of the problematic edits. Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding User talk:71.123.127.194

I have been recentchanges patrolling, and the user I have mentioned seems to be a good faith editor. Please, if you are going to give warnings, start at #1 and work your way up. I, like the user, am 'confused' and will remove your warning. Diff: [7] -- Casmith_789 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The person using that IP Address, although it appears to make good faith edits at times, also appears to be deleting content as in this edit, promoting some sort of pro-Buddhist POV (excluding other religions as in this other edit), and adding unsourced info as in this third edit, all without discussing in talk pages and almost all without Edit Summaries. Such actions are IMHO damaging to Wikipedia.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Achievements of Sachin Tendulkar

Hello Jeff,
Thanks for removing that redundant section, which got added by me without my notice. My bad! I am now wondering by looking at the diff of my edit. :) What a blunder. Thanks again and have a nice day! - KNM Talk 21:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. No harm done, just some extra info in the article for a while.  :)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeff_G./Archives/2008/January&oldid=1143082009"