User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2007/December

Be more specific man

What did I do wrong? I'm not experimenting.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.120.162 (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2007

Oh wait now I remember
JohnnyFog deleted the Sergei part and I put it back on but then changed my mind. I wasn't vandalizing the page. Sorry about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.120.162 (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2007

Apology accepted. Sorry about calling it vandalism. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong IP

I think you warned the wrong IP, cheers 87.194.204.219 04:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, lots of vandalism to that article today. 24.125.254.89 should have used an Edit Summary. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I can see you've been doing a good job on the AV front anyway :) keep up the good work! 87.194.204.219 13:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you too! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mm babies

Hi. Thanks for noticing here and there that this latest attack was by a sock of you know who. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[1][reply]

You're welcome. WAVY 10 Fan 17:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So then...

...is that reference supposed to be your urging, or did you mention it elsewhere (Since someone moved all that to a subpage, I no longer get the mediawikinotice box the next time I edit a page)? 68.39.174.238 02:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would've been a bit too obtuse. The actual urging was in this edit. And let me just take this opportunity to urge you again. :) — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bahá'u'lláh

Jeff -

I am probably dredging up an old sore subject here but I feel compelled to submit the following request:

that either the image be a link to or totally removed of Baha'u'llah that appears in the Wikipedia entry Baha'u'llah, at the bottom right of the entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1'u'll%C3%A1h

As a Catholic I feel this move would only show the religious tolerance that is essential in the world today, and would also not violate any of the efficacy of Wikipedia as the image could still be there, just not naked on the page. Arguing that the image on the page was in the public domain seems uncomfortably close to saying that since a grave robber found a priceless artifact, the nation of origin is not in it's rights to ask for it to be returned and not used in that way.

Had there been any real portraits or statues of Christ, millions of Christians would feel the same way, that just to have His image casually laying around serves no informative purpose for the public and just has shock value to those believers, something I feel Wikipedia is not about.

As journalism and free access to information go, many journalists still adhere to the notion that their coverage of a story - even ones current in real time - are and should be subject to a judgment call asking whether their particular coverage benefits society or not, especially concerning subjects where there are strong feelings attached. Obviously, Baha'u'llah's picture falls into this category and I feel Wikipedia could modify it's posting by having a link to the picture and not subject itself to compromising how it covers other subjects by way of a sensitivity complaint. As a publicly accessible knowledge base, causing offense to the very group of people - civilians - associated with the subject seems a bit beside the point. I feel that this is the standard that should be applied to all of Wikipedia's religious entries, that the information concerning all aspects of history and events are totally fair game but some sensitivity is only appropriate concerning images and pictures of the most sanctified parts of that religion. This is how I'd want my religion treated. This standard in no way interferes with coverage of any current event because current events revolve totally around the actions of people alive today, nor does it impair historical coverage because pictures of artifacts and historic sites and figures are not matters of anyone's faith and are not the item itself; photos of religious symbols and figures are as good as the item itself. This may be a fine distinction, but I think it is a totally valid one.

There, my two cents is thrown in.

I tried going through the discussion pages about the subject of Baha'u'llah's picture but either I am not smart enough to work them or they have gone dormant. Apologies if this is submitted improperly, couldn't find any other way to do it. By the way, the Wikipedia entries for Catholicism and the Catholic Portal are quite nice, as is the entry for the Baha'i Faith.

Matt R
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mreinschmidt (talk • contribs) 04:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
copied from an original post made to one of my talk archives

I have never edited page Bahá'u'lláh nor the image currently in its bottom right corner Image:Bahaullah from miller.jpg (the same image that was there when you posted the above), so I don't know why you posted here. Wikipedia is not censored, and users who try to censor it are likely to encounter Template:Uw-notcensored1, Template:Uw-notcensored2, Template:Uw-notcensored3, and/or Template:Uw-notcensored4. Also, please don't make posts to talk archives, they almost never get read quickly. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eldonb

Yes indeed I do, and I put {{IPsock}} on the IP when I blocked it. Daniel Case (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: AIV

I replied at my talk. I really would like to understand what you're saying. Thanks. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it appears from your posts there that you understand now. :) — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ospinad

Hello. I gotta disagree with you revision of Ospinad's userpage. The userbox that was deleted by the anon was also deleted by Black Kite from Ados's userpage. According to Black Kite's edit summary it was "per policy". I am not sure where it states this in the Wikipedia Policies and Rules though.

Since there is precedent of these userboxes being deleted (and rightly so), I am going to re-delete the userbox from Ospinad's userpage. Also, there appears to be an ongoing discussion on this whole thing on ANI. Take Care and Merry Christmas....NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful post above. The Edit Summary for that edit called Ospinad a pedophile, and I felt that to be a personal attack, so I reverted that edit as vandalism regardless of the content of the edit. On further review, Ospinad more accurately self-described as a Girllover. However, I support Jimbo's and the Wikimedia Foundation's wishes in general to not allow Wikimedia projects' participants to bring those projects into disrepute by allowing those projects' participants to self-describe as pedophiles or supporting pro-pedophile activism, so I will not revert your reversion. Happy Holidays! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on the edit summary. I didn't notice that when I first looked at it. Anymore the edit summaries kinda blend in to everything. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You take care too! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ceauntayc

Just putting a semi-protected tag on a page doesn't do any good unless an admin actually protects the page. I've listed it at WP:RFPP. Corvus cornix_talk 22:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Acalamari semi-protected it 23:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC). Note that IP Address 208.102.100.209 itself added tag "{{pp-semi-protected}}" in this edit; I'm sorry I didn't check that tag's veracity when doing my reduction. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of India (Marxist)

The main issues caused by the numerous sock puppets [2][3][4], and numerous others if you peruse the history of the article (all of the ips reverse-DNS to the Communist party headquarters in Calcutta, making WP:COI an issue) are that the references they are aggressively trying to tout trying to skew the article away from the facts do not address the specific allegations by the CIA pertaining to the treasonous role of the communists, but are Synthesized from disparate sources so as to poison the well against the CIA . Not only that, but the claims made by the CPI(M) propagandists that the CIA has "funded the congress party in India" are so ludicrous (and at odds with the references cited), and so in conformity with the more kooky and nonsensical propaganda of the Naxalite Maoist terrorists that they don't merit any consideration. This is clearly a concerted edit-war conducted by the Calcutta politburo of the communist party to whitewash their treasonous actions. 72.179.51.5 (talk) 21:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, please see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#.7B.7Bla.7CCommunist_Party_of_India_.28Marxist.29.7D.7D. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose/Uh-huh

Thats rather reactive. I think its vagueley appropriat efor the page! How about some good faith and all that chap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.120.178 (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goatse imagery is not welcome on Wikipedia. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion, not mine or neccasarily everyones :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.120.178 (talk) 07:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [5], [6], Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Archives/2004/12#User:Bukkake_bud, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive8#Jesuswasanarab. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 08:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe those where in cases where it didn't make sense. Nothing exactly about the conents of the image it self.. unless your excessivley prudish I could guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.120.178 (talk) 08:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a copyright violation. Why don't you sign your posts? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 08:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page the ascii goatse man came from has this text "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document" : http://goatse.cz/goatse.htm

P.S. signing is for chumps when the bot will do it for you automatically —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.120.178 (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ascii goatse man is not on that page. And it was made from hello.jpg, which is copyrighted by the photographer, presumably Kirk Johnson or one of his buddies. Are you calling me a chump? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 08:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the ascii art can generated from an EMACs script: http://www.jpgclan.com/do-the-goatse I'm not enough of a copyright owner to say who owns the copy right of a script generated ascii art based on a copyrighted photo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.120.178 (talk) 08:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AuroraBorealisFromSpace.JPG

Hi Jeff,

In regards to this image on Wiki under Aurora - Astronomy : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AuroraBorealisFromSpace.JPG There is a credit to you as being a subsequent uploader.

"Author

Original uploader was Rickyjames at en.wikipedia Later version(s) were uploaded by Jeff G. at en.wikipedia. (Original text : en:NASA"

Can you tell me anything about the source of this image? I have been searching very diligently for the original, without success...

Below is the text of a message I received from an archiver at the Johnson Space Center which I found very interesting..

"Thank you for your message. Unfortunately we cannot help you locate the source of this image - it is a composite image, rather than an original astronaut photograph. We know this because:

1. Aurora (either australis or borealis) in astronaut photographs are green in color, not bright blue. 2. The high illumination of the Earth's surface in the image would not be present - the high degree of earthshine would tend to render the aurora much less visible than portrayed. 3. The coastline in the image is that of northeastern South America, near the Amazon River outlet. The view is therefore towards the south, making it impossible to be the aurora borealis (and also unlikely to be the aurora australis given the suggested orbital position).

If you are interested in original astronaut photographs of aurora, you can use our technical search tools at http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/sql.htm, and do a Features search on "aurora borealis" or "aurora australis". Imagery in our online database can be downloaded free of charge.

...

Thank you for your interest in astronaut photography of Earth!

Earthweb The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth NASA Johnson Space Center http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov

Original Message-----

From: Peter Galipault [7] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 1:40 PM To: JSC-Earthweb Subject: Aurora photograph

Hi there,

I am searching for a high-resolution file of this image. Do you know where it came from. One source said mission sts117.

Let me know.

Thanks!

Peter"

Jeff,

If you have any further information regarding this image I would greatly appreciate your reply.

Sincerely,

Peter

Peter Galipault

Movidea

peter@movidea.com
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.206.22 (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
copied from an original post made to one of my talk archives

Peter, thank you for your message. As I mentioned in this edit, I got the version I uploaded from http://www.geekologie.com/2007/06/25/Aurora-Borealis.jpg as displayed by Geekologie at http://www.geekologie.com/image.php?path=/2007/06/25/Aurora-Borealis.jpg. Taking a second look, it's a nice image, I wish I knew where it really came from as well. You might want to try asking Anticlown Media (the copyright holder for geekologie.com, via this form or one of the methods on this page) about its source. Also, please don't make posts to talk archives, they almost never get read quickly. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jeff!

I'll check it out. Sorry about posting the message to the archive, but I'm new to this format.

Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.206.22 (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Apology accepted. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just now posted to that form. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any word yet? I removed the photo from the Aurora article because it supposedly is the aurora borealis but is facing south, thus not borealis. Also odd to have aurora within 15 degrees of the equator without being mentioned by STS-117. I also didn't find this photo in the STS-117 gallery at [8] I don't think we can know that this photo is only from NASA. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No word yet, sorry! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still no word. I have just asked the original uploader Rickyjames to join in this discussion. Other steps we can take are emailing anticlown at gmail (~~you have~~Peter has the original email correspondence with NASA) and calling them. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 12:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the oddities drew attention to it but I think we can start the removal process soon due to not being able to verify that it is a NASA image. The source site doesn't have a link to a NASA source and that image doesn't happen to be in the STS-117 gallery. We can't confirm it is from NASA. The oddities at least introduce suspicion of other copyrightable material, but not being able to confirm the NASA source is enough to question the present licensing. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Rickyjames "has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users."[9] Barring further information about the true source of this image before 6 January 2008 (UTC), I intend to nominate it for deletion at about 05:00 (UTC) on that day. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least you can strip off the NASA license and mark it as unknown source; I think that's deletable in 7 days. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Prototype Kilogram

Per your edit comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kilogram&oldid=180270016 : "Please create the article before wikifying to it.." .. I would create the article if I could. I was hoping someone else (perhaps you) might create it so it could be edited. I think the only existing copy of the actual kilogram is worth an article, kinda silly that it doesn't have one! BTW are you like stalking me or something dude? --99.247.120.178 (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's right, you don't have an account. You could create the article if you had an account. And I'm not stalking, just watching closely. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:T'Keyah_Crystal_Keymáh_Leading_Lady_Headshot_Small.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:T'Keyah_Crystal_Keymáh_Leading_Lady_Headshot_Small.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I have disputed your contention in the appropriate venues. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't stalk me, bro

I don't think my edits on Falsetto, Babies in Toyland, Jupiter Station, or DNALinux would be considered as vandalism. YI I think you are in violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROD#Conflicts since you seem to want to put back the prod tags I contested. Those articles should now go to AFD. Thank you, come again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.120.178 (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are taking too many short cuts. You did not contest those particular prod and prod2 tag additions properly by specifying a reason per Wikipedia:PROD#Conflicts. Please specify in the Edit Summary a reason for each and every removal of a prod or prod2 tag; if the Edit Summary is too small, please put the reason in the article's talk page and refer to that in the Edit Summary. Also, please sign your posts, use Edit Summaries, and create an account. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise all that counted as vandalism, I'll have to re-read the policy. How about you not sign your posts and don't use your account (since we are telling each other what to do), you can also sign your name here if you want: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_users_should_not_be_allowed_to_edit_articles

TTFN

99.247.120.178 (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words: I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request

99.247.120.178 (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not sign your posts: nah, wouldn't be polite.
don't use your account: nah, I only do that by rare mistake, or don't register if I'm only making one edit to a project in a language I don't understand, such as for purposes of changing image names.
you can also sign your name here if you want: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_users_should_not_be_allowed_to_edit_articles : done, thanks for the pointer, and for signing more of your posts.

— Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of assistance. Speaking of help, I should point out my IP address is probably going to change soon. I'll still be editing, but I don't know who you'll stalk now. So sad :( 99.247.120.178 (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24.124.33.245

Could you please assist in blocking the above Ip address? An anonymous editor with that ip address continues to make disruptive edits. Thank you ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkp212 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, please see this log, this diff, and this other diff referencing the block. Thank you for your assistance. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate your help. --Jkp212 (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Please let me know if you need any further assistance, like with making your own user page, which you are entitled to do now that you have WP:REGISTERED. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User :99.247.120.178

I just gave this user a final notice of vandalism and stated the following on the talk page:

"After Jeff G.'s (talk|contribs) warning, prods were still removed from Babies in Toyland and a claim of wiki'd and that there was an interest' in the article. No modification was done to wiki the article or change it's content other then a header. No legitimate reason to remove the prods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmedema (talk • contribs) 04:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that didn't work, but then neither did Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Jeff_G. Would you care to try another avenue from WP:DR? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your feelings about the (anon) editor, it does seem they are contesting the proposed deletions. These pages should then go to AFD, not have the prod tag reinserted. Was just about to remove on Babies in Toyland when someone beat it to me. --Sajendra (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, I haven't the time at present. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Daniel Case put it up for AfD. User:Sajendra is the only one saying weak keep. The prods should not have been removed and it was a vandalism by an anon disruptive editor. BUT... I digress, and apologise to Sajendra for my hothead... I will consider AfD's more often then the prod process as it does not work with disruptive, anon editors.--Pmedema (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]