FYI [1] The dad's name is Joe so the removal of Jordan Crawford Jr. is entirely appropriate. I havent gone back through the edit history to find out when that error slipped in, but the Jr shouldnt be there. Active Banana (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. That error was in from the very first edit. Sorry I got confused between Joe Sr. and Jordan.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm honored to receive this Barnstar. Very much appreciated. Thanks for helping fight and block (if someone hasn't gotten to them first XD ) persistent vandals! Thanks again! Fox816 (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you add pictures of Jordan Crawford and Mannie Fresh to their articles? Wayne Olajuwon (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you take pictures of them yourself and release those pictures under a Free Content License which meets the terms of the Definition of Free Cultural Works specific to licenses, as can be found at http://freedomdefined.org/Definition version 1.0, or under an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP), such as Wikipedia:Non-free content, in order to comply wih the WikiMedia Foundation Licensing Policy Resolution of 23 March 2007? Or can you find pictures of them that have already been so released?   — Jeff G. ツ 16:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Please I have made the episode list 'simple' (ex. List of NCIS episodes, List of Law & Order: CI episodes, List of M*A*S*H episodes) if you will. All the excess information was moved to a subarticle (i.e. In Plain Sight (season 1)) if you will. The more excess and uneeded info on the MAIN episode list the harder it is to find what you are looking for. It all needs it's own seasons-by-season article. SVU4671 (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. It would be better if you use Edit Summaries more, and pay attention to consensus.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've requested for semi-protection on Edwin P. Morrow as a vandalism war appears to be going on. I'll help the best I can until a block has been put in place. Good hunting. Fox816 (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 03:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have undid your undo on my edit. You claimed it was not constructive, but if you noticed I was maintaining consistency through out the Awards wiki entries. The winner of each category does not need to have "Winner" beside it. If you disagree you should check previous MTV Movie Awards or check other awards such as the Golden Globes or the Academy awards. Someone111111 (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not? It looks like useful information to have.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For your diligent efforts clerking the username change requests pages, please accept this as a small token of my appreciation. –xenotalk 16:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 20:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

On new usurpers

Hey Jeff, just wanted to follow up re: [2] (the "new" field). As far as I understand it the new=yes/no currently applies to the target account. Perhaps it should be reworded as well to cover the stipulation that "In order to ensure that usurped usernames be put to good use, we prefer only to grant requests from reasonably well-established users"? (i.e. as with current request 'Orange'). Thoughts? –xeno^talk 03:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that makes sense. However, implementation would depend on operational changes to ClueBot VI, which is currently off due to lack of chilled water in the datacenter around it, as well as to Template:CUU. For the time being, we could add an "snew" parameter for the source that defaults to "no" and preserve "new" for the destination for backward compatibility.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Not vandalism, I just didn't go back far enough to remove all the chat-like clutter. 24.4.101.72 (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Please be more specific with your Edit Summaries.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hiya. I removed your uw-chat2 tag from User talk:Halo the hottie‎ as I'd just tagged them with a uw-chat1 for (what I assume was) the same thing. Feel free to add back if necessary! Thanks! Fin©™ 16:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I got the sequence wrong. You warned the user after all three instances of chatting; I thought it was after the first one.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi - I've left you a message at the Conservapedia talk page regarding the addition of the external link to RationalWiki in the Conservapedia article. If you disagree with my reasoning and still think that a link to RationalWiki is appropriate for the article, please feel free to reply. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I have replied there.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not necessary to cite statements that are accurate, a priori, such as the fact that marquis reagent and sodium nitroprusside do not react with the most common adulterant of MDMA, BZP, and will react with small, sub-clinical doses of MDMA, which is easily sited by visiting any of the number of "pill testing" web-sites on the internet, or by reading any DEA Microgram from the past three years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.176.190 (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get that information, for instance that "many manufacturers will place a small, inactive dose of MDMA in their pills along with an active adulterant such as BZP, to ensure that pill tests will give a positive result for MDMA"?   — Jeff G. ツ 05:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

DEA Microgram Bulletin (based on several statements, at least two to three seizures in every issue dating back to late 2008, the fact no pill has been seized containing an active dose of MDMA in nearly 3 years, and that many pills containing a mixture of piperazines have a "very low relative loading" of MDMA if they contain any MDMA at all, leading one to believe that the active constituent is a piperazine, with MDMA to react with reagents, or containing 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodophenethylamine or another 4'-substituted mescaline derivative thereof, which do give a different result reacted with SNP or Marquis), Journal of Forensic Drug Analysis (have to look up issue/volume/PMID), Drugs-Forum.com MDMA FAQ, Ecstasydata.org, Pillreports.com, Dancesafe.org/pilltesting.html (reports of pills sent in for GC/MS analysis), and the simple fact that SNP, Mecke, and Marquis don't react at all with BZP (or give an "MDMA-postive" result for several drugs that aren't MDMA). Therefore, 10mg of MDMA, along with 200mg of BZP/TFMPP/meta-CPP, etc. will give a positive result of MDMA using SNP, Mecke, or Marquis, or all three in series, but will have the effects of the main active constituent, a piperazine. 75.179.176.190 (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please look up the "issue/volume/PMID". Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 15:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I keep trying to change the Tony Award for Best Direction of a Play and you guys say I am vandilizing it. I am watching the Tony's live and know Michael Grandage won. Please change it so it shows him as the winner. I would but I don't want to be kicked off for no reason. He did Red the play. I'm watching live and know he's the winner. Please change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.177.240 (talk) 05:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Tony Awards are live on TV at 1:42am EST? Why can't you cite http://www.tonyawards.com/en_US/nominees/winners.html and sign your comments?   — Jeff G. ツ 05:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I am on the west coast so it's 10:48 here in Washington. Can't do the sgwiggly thing. I didn't cite it because none of the others do.

-Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.177.240 (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You can cite it in the Edit Summary, and you can use the signature-looking button on the toolbar to generate a signature for you (see WP:Signatures for details).   — Jeff G. ツ 05:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

re: your warning

Uh, you sure about that? ;-) I see two edits: here and here. Looks OK to me, or am I missing something?

Cheers, TFOWR 15:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Huggle identified the wrong page. I have corrected its mistake in this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries! As a new admin, I am without sin so felt hypocritically qualified to comment ;-) Thanks for fixing. TFOWR 16:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, please fix your sig - the talk page link is a redirect. Ta. Chzz  ►  16:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That is by design, it's not broken.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you want it as a redirect?  Chzz  ►  16:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It gives me more wheat and less chaff when I view search results like this.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Fair enough. Ta. Chzz  ►  17:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how correcting a term that is recognized as potentially offensive and whose usage is recommended against by a reputable grammar authority is considered "controversial". Additionally, how do you suggest I cite the changing the word "comedienne" to "comedian"?ThomasSixten (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is that your changes violated the consistency of the articles, as well as the English Wikipedia Manual of Style.

The generally accepted term for a female comedian is "comedienne" - see wikt:comedienne. "comedienne" does not appear on List of commonly misused English words or List of English words with disputed usage. Furthermore, WP:MOS#Gender-neutral_language.5BR.5D says "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision. This does not apply to direct quotations or the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), which should not be altered; nor where all referents are of one gender, such as in an all-female school (When any student breaks that rule, she loses privileges)." (emphasis added) and Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language#Gendered_nouns_and_adjectives states "Where the gender is known, gender-specific items are also appropriate ("Bill Gates is a businessman" or "Nancy Pelosi is a congresswoman")." If you want to change all feminine forms to traditionally masculine forms, please feel free to open a community discussion on the talk page of one of those pages or on the Village Pump. A citation would be to a community decision here on English Wikipedia to not only recognize the opinions of the editors of The American Heritage guide to contemporary usage and style (2005) and The New York Times manual of style and usage, Volume 1999, Part 2 and change the abovementioned guideline and essay, but also change all gender-specific items where the gender is known to non-gender-specific.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No look what your edit has done to Paul Wickens! [3] APOLOGISE TO ME NOW. 92.24.82.238 (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have gone back farther.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you're at/near the top of the list here. My main question at this point is why are you interested in AC/what do you think you will gain from it? I ask mainly as the numbers suggest you're at least as experienced as a lot of admins here. Peter 14:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your message. My RfA at Commons was disappointing and RfA here is very daunting. However, I think my bureaucratship and adminships on other wikis and my more recent experience should help. You may want to review User:Jeff G./Admin coaching and User:Jeff G./Coaching.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look. I'm not sure I'll be able to help you that much but if I have any suggestions I'll drop by again. Peter 20:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there; I am responding to your comment made on my talk page, requesting unblock of this user. I would have been happy to do so - I had not been to her page since she requested a name change - but her name was changed and the block lifted this morning. The name will redirect. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for following up. I have redirected her old user page to what may become her new user page.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed your "final warning" that you issued to the above editor. The vandalism took place getting on for 24 hours ago, iirc - and Rohedin had reported problems at ANI (and you had responded) in the early hours (UTC) of today.

If there are further 'dodgy' edits, let me (or Coren) know and we can block the account as a compromised one - but it has to be for edits done after this morning (UTC)! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, will do. Thanks for the notice.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Anyone who does not float in this inundation is most condemned. Such a person cannot be delivered for millions of kalpas. PURPORT The kalpa is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā (8.17): sahasra-yuga-paryantam ahar yad brahmaṇo viduḥ. One day of Brahmā is called a kalpa. A yuga, or mahā-yuga, consists of 4,320,000 years, and one thousand such mahā-yugas constitute one kalpa. The author of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta says that if one does not take advantage of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he cannot be delivered for millions of such kalpas." (Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Antya 3.255) [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.184.135 (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Please, don't delete this"[5] is unacceptable in a Wikipedia article.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we crossed paths. I've removed yours (as the 3rd) so the numbering remains consistent. Cheers! TNXMan 19:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Pity Twinkle didn't notice it was adding a second AfD to the article.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. I know Twinkle stops the PROD process if detects an existing tag. I wonder if it could do the same for AfD's? TNXMan 19:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You may also be interested in MediaWiki talk:Tag-prod removed-description and Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Adding_a_second_AfD_to_the_same_article.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, my edit to 1960s in music was not vandalism. CCR broke up in 1972, and actually peaked in 1969. 76.126.21.16 (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that info from a reliable source? Can we verify it? Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 03:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article states that Cream broke up in 1968, CCR in 1972. 76.126.21.16 (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Try digging deeper.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I've reinstated the text that you deleted, since it seemed to me to be an accurate summary of the sources it cited. What was your concern about this edit, did I miss something obvious here? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this edit was the one good edit that fell through the cracks and I didn't catch when I clicked the rollback all link.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, no worries! Tim Vickers (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this reversion: [6]. I have undone it, please take a look. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The following two lines were added without a source:

Lord Kitchener

Lord Jellicoe

(indented here)   — Jeff G. ツ 20:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. They were moved and edited, not removed. Well, I think the article is ok as is: [7]. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

oops, I responded to the earlier revision of what you said. I'm not sure I agree with this action, but ok. thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You might want to remove the warning and apologize to that IP editor - he was moving a question to another desk as he had been advised to do. DuncanHill (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, but 92.15.1.238 (talk · contribs) had no right to remove a question by 92.28.251.43 (talk · contribs) and answer by Nil Einne (talk · contribs) in this edit without expressing a good reason in the Edit Summary. WP:TALK#Others.27_comments clearly states "you should not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission" and none of the exceptions apply.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well that's one way of discouraging IP editors who try to be helpful I suppose. I'm sure you'll find more. DuncanHill (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well that's one way of encouraging IP editors who try to disrupt our processes by removing the contributions of others I suppose. I'm sure you'll find more.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it was quite clear that the two IP addresses were the same editor (see the apology for posting in the wrong place), and the comment of Nil Einne was not removed, just moved with the question to the board that Nil Einne suggested. DuncanHill (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nil Einne suggested posting there "in the future", not moving the discussion there. Also, editors generally do not change IP Addresses from one Class B to another Class B numbered 13 higher, and if they do they will clearly explain what they are doing in the edit or an Edit Summary.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello! You reverted my edit to the Ford Granada page. I reinstated what was deleted from the main body, but left the disputed info in the infobox for discussion. The conversions (already referenced as such in the main text) were executed by Coleman Milne and Woodall Nicholson. At least the Coleman Milne limos were sold as Coleman Milnes rather than Fords and were even given their own names (Minster, Grosvenor, Dorchester). Further sources for this include TAM (Quattroruote publication), World Cars 1977, L'Auto Journal Salon du Monde 1979, 1980 and 1981. Further proof that these conversions were never sold by Ford themselves can be found in any back issue of Autocar or Car with a pricelist (I need to dig one up). A potted history of WN and CM can be found here: aronline

Furthermore, other conversions such as Crayford's Cortina Convertible are listed in their infoboxes as conversions (although I don't think they belong there) or preferably, not placed in the infobox at all. By the standards seemingly proposed by the editors of the Ford Granada page, the Range Rover infobox should actually include two- and four-door convertibles (as converted by Rapport, Wood & Pickett), six-wheel versions (Carmichael, Rapport, Scottorn Trailers), pickup trucks (Carbodies, Wood & Pickett), and limousines (Wood & Pickett). Also, if the limos belong in the infobox, then Coleman Milne Minster, Grosvenor, and Dorchester should be included as AKAs. I also don't see the Coleman Milne wheelbase (3,656 mm) included in the infobox.

As a matter of fact, I believe that the onus is upon the original editor to prove that limos were ever offered by Ford Motor Company. The existence of hearse versions is in fact wholly undocumented; so was the existence of limos until I just now provided a reference. The proof of existence must come from those who provide the claims.

Perhaps a discussion of what the template is meant to include is also in order? I also posted this at Talk:Ford Granada (Europe), which is probably the best place for a discussion. Mr.choppers (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the edit I reverted didn't cite a reliable source.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

My edit consisted of moving unverified content from the infobox into the main body. No new information was added. Anyhow, now that it's verified is it alright to correct it again? I am not yet familiar enough with Wiki etiquette to know if I can do it without posting to you first. Cheers.

Mr.choppers (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You asked me for references because I changed something in the Political Colours article. You also erased the thing without even checking if it was right or wrong information. Because of you, wikipedia erased right information and changed it for wrong information, incorrect information, or in popular language, LIES. So I just wrote again my edition and added 10 references, you can check them all and accept your defeat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.87.165 (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not erase the whole article, just your additions. You added unsourced information three times, twice after specifically being asked not to. Thank you for providing sourced information. Also, I am not an admin here, as you claimed in your Edit Summary for this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What I am saying is that you should erase the whole article except from my edit, or look for the cites for each sentence yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.87.165 (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).   — Jeff G. ツ 02:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please be more careful with AIV reports, such as this one. There are several others you've reported today that could justifiably be tagged as {{AIV|nv}}. For example, you reported a genre warrior and genre warring is not, in itself, vandalism and can be done in good faith. It's better to explain to them exactly what is wrong with their edit rather than simply revert and drop a generic template on their talk page. Please make sure the editors you report are vandals, otherwise consider other venues (ANI or ANEW for example) or try discussing thing with the editor. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. If adding unsourced information, deleting sourced information, and genre warring were not blockable vandalism (after a level 4 warning), then Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings would not have sanctioned such warnings as {{uw-unsor1}}, {{uw-delete1}}, and {{uw-genre1}}.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say they weren't blockable- I blocked the genre warrior- but those are exactly the kind of edits that can be made in good faith. In the first instance, it's usually better to drop them a handwritten note explaining why the edit is problematic, rather than dropping a template that just says "don't do that". It's usually safe to assume bad faith when someone replaces the content with "penis", but blanking is often done in good faith, for example in the belief that they're deleting the article because they believe it should go or I've seen the subjects of BLPs remove parts of or blank the entirety of their article. Likewise, genre warring may be in good faith and until someone explains it to them, the editor may have no idea why their edits are disruptive. All I'm saying is that in borderline cases, it can help to take a minute to try to engage them rather than just template them and report them. :) Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to A more GF and engage in borderline cases.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

...for reverting my user page. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 06:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The page already says that he's dead, I just changed one verb tense to match this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.44.152.144 (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You guys are on point tonight. I figured my edit of "Miroslav Klose" would get nailed quickly enough but an edit of "Parking"......I'm impressed by the response time. I do think you should manage to work "reverse parking" or "backing in" into your article though as it is a very popular form of parking. Just a thought. Thanks for your time, have a good evening, and see you next edit.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.170.243 (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 00:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop removing my edits mate. Who do you think you are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.234.206 (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You want any reliable source, read any damn history book about the war huh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.208.155 (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Which one did you read, and where exactly did it say that Sweden shared in the victory of the English Wars (Scandinavia)? Please cite it. Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 01:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess you don't read much history, arn't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.208.155 (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I blocked that user once I saw that he had resumed editing and you clarified. In the future, describe edits like that as disruptive, rather than vandalism. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I have drafted some response language at User:Jeff G./Disruptive editing responses - please take a look at it. Thanks again!   — Jeff G. ツ 04:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on International Association of Certified Home Inspectors. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have flagged it as a copyvio instead.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It looked suspiciously like a copyvio but I wasn't able to find a match. Without a tag or edit summary, it's an edit war. Thanks for clearing up. Toddst1 (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Re this notice - the IP concerned has, for some weeks now, been carrying out similar types of edits to a variety of articles, and his preferred edit summary is "copy edit". He was blocked for about 24 hr in late May for unsourced POV-pushing. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think that list of TV channels belongs to that article?--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

For the same reason that the lists (tables) are in the article for Asia and Oceania. That list has been in the article in some form since this edit 09:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC).   — Jeff G. ツ 22:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"Please stop reverting other people's edits, as you are doing in Martin Tyler. You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. If you revert again, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Please discuss any disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ"

At least do what you ask me to do. Go take a look at the talk page before undoing my edit. I discussed it on the talk page at the first place and then you simply undid my edit without making a response to my discussion. Please send one of these warnings to yourself.-- And Rew 02:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have already responded there.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes thank you for your response, by the time I posted the above message you hadn't yet. And by the way I apologize for my harsh language, I got furious because I was about to get blocked from Wikipedia -- And Rew 03:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please review your use of rollback to revert the IP at the article above, and explain how the edits are "vandalism". You might owe the IP an apology. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your concern. In this of its first series of edits to that article this month, the editor at that IP Address deleted a referenced paragraph about living person Angela Buxton without explanation. In its next series of edits, it made more unreferenced changes involving living persons, including an unexplained deletion. Similarly, in its last series of edits, it made even more unreferenced changes involving living persons, including an unexplained deletion. All of these are contrary to policies and guidelines, including WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS. It has yet to explain any of them.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ask why you reverted the changes; I asked why you used rollback, didn't explain your revert, called the IP's edits "vandalism", and reported them to AIV. I note that, with one or two exceptions, the whole page is essentially unsourced, so adding unsourced material doesn't seem to be a reasonable reason to demand blocking without talking to the editor first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I used rollback because Huggle is configured to use rollback, I am allowed to use rollback, and unexplained/unsourced changes to content are blatantly unproductive, one type of edit upon which rollback is permitted. Twinkle and Huggle use language that calls such changes vandalism by default. Huggle decided to automatically report that IP Address to AIV on my behalf when I elected to have it take action on the last set of changes. Reports at AIV are not demands for blocking, they are requests for administrator attention. Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs) and Epeefleche (talk · contribs) tried talking to this editor as 98.238.208.110 (talk · contribs) using templates, to no avail. Others have tried talking to this editor in previous guises (per Fyunck(click)) as Djensen409 (talk · contribs), 71.197.77.124 (talk · contribs), and 67.161.160.59 (talk · contribs), also to no avail. I cannot withdraw my AIV report, but I have apologized.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Jeff, thank you for your comment on his talk page. However, the rest of this response concerns me even more than I was initially. You should consider a little more if this is really the approach you want to take. As I'm sure you were told when you started using Huggle, you are responsible for the edits made with those tools; nothing is Huggle's fault. It is really not on to report an editor to AIV if you don't think they're vandalizing. It is not on to call an editor's edits vandalism "by default" if they aren't vandalism. Please either figure out how to use the non-default approach when necessary, or stop reverting anything except clear vandalism with Huggle. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Huggle has two options for reporting users, "Vandalism after final warning" and "Inappropriate username". Twinkle has three options for reporting users, "Vandalism", "Username", and "Sockpuppeteer". Neither has an option for reporting disruptive or tendentious editing anywhere. I have started using WP:DE for disruptive non-vandalistic editing by users with redlinked user talk pages (see my mention of User:Jeff G./Disruptive editing responses above), but with this user there was already a fresh level 4 warning on its user talk page, so I trusted too much in the judgement of Epeefleche (talk · contribs).   — Jeff G. ツ 02:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Then don't use automated tools and templates. If there isn't a template that says what you're trying to say, write it out. If the edit isn't blatant vandalism, don't use rollback. If Huggle doesn't give you an option that doesn't use rollback, use another button. The undo feature is very much underrated- it's not just for new editors, I use it frequently and I'm an admin. If the edit is disruptive, but not vandalism per se, undo it with an explanation in the edit summary, and leave the editor a polite note explaining why the edit isn't appropriate. If that doesn't work, then you can escalate to using rollback etc. I don't know how Huggle works with warnings, but Twinkle has a complete index of warning templates, so use the right one. Imagine if you were a new editor and you changed a genre on a music article (for example), only to have it reverted without explanation and to see some template message about vandalism on your talk page. How would that make you feel about your first experience with Wikipedia? Without wishing to sound unpleasant, Huggle is not a substitute for thought or communication. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

So, they're now spamming their own talk page. Sorry if I stepped into the middle of something that I shouldn't have. I'm still sorta new at this, so I'm just wondering what's the appropriate action here? Let 'em go and when they get bored, revert the page back to normal? Or, just completely ignore them and let them do whatever they want to their talk page (keeping in mind that's a shared page and other, innocent, anonymous IP editors might see it? Just wondering. Cheers! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The next step is to block them. Please see WP:RBI.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, too, for reverting that same vandal's damage to my talk page! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome again.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I am never good at nominating articles for deletion, it isn't my speciality however it appears that you're rather good at it. I can't really remember what to do. Could you please nominate "Abkhazia–Venezuela relations" for deletion on my behalf. I previously nominated it for deletion in September last year, however the article is still not notable, it doesn't go beyond diplomatic recognition and that is already covered in the article "International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia"; "Abkhazia–Venezuela relations" just repeats that article. It adds nothing new, it isn't notable and it is just a redundant article. Regards IJA (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think they should be merged, so I have tagged them as such and started a discussion at Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia#Merge_from_Abkhazia.E2.80.93Venezuela_relations.

For semiautomated AfD, I have been using the "xfd" feature of Twinkle, which unfortunately does not work with Internet Explorer.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers IJA (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm just reminding you to be a bit more careful when prodding an article, checking the history first. It had already been proposed for deletion and this is a clear case of the author intentionally removing the prod tag. If you think the article should still be deleted as poorly referenced, you need to go to WP:AFD. Thanks, PleaseStand ^(talk) 15:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I PRODded it for different reasons, but since my PROD has been reverted, I have sent it to AfD.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Communist Party of China has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you.

Irritating, isn't it?

Now, here's what happened. This was the status before my edit:

ideology =
Communism,
Maoism,
Deng Xiaoping Theory with Chinese Socialism,
Three Represents,
Scientific Development Concept. Note the high degree of accuracy.

This is the edit by an editor who did not log in (202.40.139.168)

>Chinese Socialism,
Social conservatism
Chinese nationalism . Notice the lack of accuracy.

So, I reverted it. And, I will do so again. Please explain why you do not accept the standard description of current CCP ideology, and instead support this original research.

Thanks! DOR (HK) (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I have reverted my warning. You also made a mistake in posting to my user page, rather than my user talk page.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the page is so crowded that I couldn't tell what it is! DOR (HK) (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jeff G.

Im just wondering why it was deleted. The page was Myth Men Guardians of the Legend. Reply on my talk page. Cheers mate! Canterbury21 (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You posted in the wrong place (on my user page, not my user talk page. Article Myth Men Guardians of the Legend still exists, but is the subject of a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myth Men Guardians of the Legend, where I wrote "No indication it meets notability criteria for books. Unsourced. Contested PROD." You may comment there if you wish.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey! I did post credible and verifiable sources, such as the NYTimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.152.39 (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not in this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Im learning. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lower458 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Did you post the "Hey!" message above?   — Jeff G. ツ 22:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lower458 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:LTA/Grawp. In other words, if you see HAGGER, just report the IP as JarlaxleArtemis or "Grawp." Just a heads up  – Tommy [message] 23:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but can Grawp be blocked on sight for ban evasion, and is WP:AIV the best method to notify an admin about the offender?   — Jeff G. ツ 23:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

AIV is designed for vandalism, I think it's okay. I'm especially pleased with many new sysops so I have no reason to think it wouldn't be. I just sent the message here cuz I saw you give the JA/G (IP) a 4im warning, and wanted to let you know that it's okay to just report him. Thanks  – Tommy [message] 23:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Appears we have a person libeling a living person Darrin McGillis using a blog as sourced info--98.242.241.252 (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:OVERSIGHT.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You recently flagged me for this edit, stating I was personally attacking someone. I don't see how I was attacking anyone. Could you please elaborate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by XJRfoBY (talk • contribs) 05:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Your Edit Summary called Rrius "a liberal".   — Jeff G. ツ 05:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

With all do respect, that's not an insult, it is an accurate description. He was recruited by Devono because he was an experienced editor who had reviewed a variety of liberal pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XJRfoBY (talk • contribs) 05:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are you deleting what I wrote on Jayg's page?Ekarfi13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.132.185.48 (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep impersonating Ekarfi13?   — Jeff G. ツ 05:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

the article Maghrebim is very important for our community , we have an identity , we do not want people to forget it. why are you saying I'm impersonating ? I'm not.Ekarfi13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.132.185.48 (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Why aren't you logging in then?   — Jeff G. ツ 05:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok I do it then..but I'm enregistered in the French Wikipedia Ekarfi13 —Preceding undated comment added 05:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC).

Thanks, but you still need to datestamp your posts.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

El Mezquital was some sort of hoax/non notable group, so I deleted it. The speedy tag wasn't strictly correct, as the article doesn't exist on another project (at least in that form). (eswiki) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm just wondering how you came to the conclusion that removing a category from a few articles was vandalism to the point that you reported the IP to AIV. Maybe I'm missing something, but removing one category from a group of articles doesn't seem like vandalism to me. For the record, your report was declined by User:Materialscientist. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The user was quickly depopulating a category, without expressing any reasons either in Edit Summaries or in talk pages, despite being asked not to.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

{{subst:uw-vandal1}}-{{subst:uw-vandal4}} isn't really asking them to stop. They may have had a perfectly good reason for removing that category. I know I'm giving you a bit of a hard time of late, for which I apologise, but Huggle isn't a substitute for discussion and just disagreeing with or not understanding an edit doesn't make it vandalism. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jeff - sorry for that deletion, was not aware of protocol, definitely didn't mean to mess with an article in that way. My bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecheesefeed (talk • contribs) 00:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please sign your posts and see Wikipedia:Autobiography. Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 01:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

yo im sorry and i wont change music genres its just the song is east coast hip-hop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.227.54 (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to make your argument on the talk page, and then if you can establishing a consensus there, you can change the genre, with reference to the consensus in the Edit Summary.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for this mistaken reversion. You and I were apparently both seeking to revert the immediately preceding edit; you reverted that, and I reverted you. I'm guessing that this was due to a mis-click on my part. Another editor noticed my error and reverted me here (for which I have thanked him). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the notice.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Well, I'm quite surprise to see that there is someone else who pays some attention to that article! About your question, I removed because the text is wrong and misleading.

Any reader who would like to know more about the history of the Brazilian Empire should take a look - for now - at the following links (as long I am not done with the article):

• Pedro II of Brazil
• Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil
• Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná

It's all a matter of having patience. Soon all will be done. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. I saw your deletion on recent changes.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds it strange how all of his edits are immediately (within 1 minute) after vandalism edits from IPs? -Regancy42 (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he's using WP:RC to find edit candidates?   — Jeff G. ツ 05:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Too coincidental. I don't know, it looks suspicious to me. -Regancy42 (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop pasting false accusations on my page, I have never removed or deleted anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.98 (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop removing SineBot's signatures and start adding your own. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I just checked, and what happened was an accidental deletion, my apologies to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.98 (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and so I'm still learning the edit rules and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.98 (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. You should read the following next: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:Signatures, and Template:Welcome-anon.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

First I have a roll back guy say i am adding un-sourced material. I am not doing that and in fact I am adding sources and putting sources to material that does not have it. And correcting mistakes or what others improperly changed and did not source. When I ask for an explanation of this the roll back guy ignored me. Then I do another edit and you accuse me of vandalism. My edit to that article did not constitute vandalism. Please show where I did any vandalism and please provide the proof of what wikipedia rule I broke in that edit that qualifies as vandalism.74.194.176.82 (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In this edit, you deleted the text "He is projected to be a draft pick in the 2010 NBA Draft. His" and the text "His primary weakness is his lack of strength." without explanation.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all kindly explain how that is "vandalism". Under Wikipedia's rules that is no such thing as vandalism. The first part about him being an NBA draft pick.......he was not an NBA draft pick. How can it be vandalism for removing that? So for removing something about him being a draft pick, when he was not drafted is "vandalism"? The second part is not vandalism either. "His primary weakness is lack of strength"? Really? According to whom? So someone's personal opinion on how strong someone may or may not be (with no proof of this opinion I might add) is considered encyclopedic to you? And I asked for you to please kindly show me the Wikipedia rule that states what i did was vandalism.74.194.176.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC).

Please see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Multi-level_templates#Deletion, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and Wikipedia:Vandalism.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I will repeat it once again. He was not an NBA draft pick. So it should not say in the article that he was going to be one. A personal and unverified and unsourced opinion on how strong someone is or is not, isn't considered encyclopedic content. Removing those two things is not considered vandalism. Do I need to ask some admins to settle this? Because the first thing I get is from the roll backer that I am putting unsourced info which was a false accusation. That's not true as I was putting sources. I asked him for an explanation and he ignored and it would provide no proof of his accusations. I got a level 1 warning whatever that is. Then suddenly you accuse me of vandalism when I was not vandalizing anything. Then say i got a level 2 warning. So is that how this works? Someone did not like an edit I made so he falsely accuses me of not sourcing material, then he has you jump in and accuse me falsely of vandalism? Is that how this works here? Will I get a level 3 warning for some phantom violation next? If you can't explain these actions properly I will have other admins look at this, because I know this isn't right what you are claiming.74.194.176.82 (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're right. I have withdrawn my revert and warning. I also withdrew your comment on my warning because it no longer had context.   — Jeff G. ツ 09:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jeff,

You issued a level one warning diff to 68.173.67.147‎ for vandalism to 14th Street (Manhattan), when I have already issued up to level three for the same vandalism. Could you please change that to a level four warning and report to AIV? Thanks! Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done   — Jeff G. ツ 08:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain your recent series of reverts (e.g. [8]) there and the AIV report of 82.253.37.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Materialscientist (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There were about 11 unsourced additions of content to article French exonyms by that IP Address (which has yet to respond to anything posted on its user talk page), following about 21 similar additions by a nearby IP Address. I'm sorry if I seemed bitey.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think those edits should be referenced? Do you write in French? Have you looked at other exonym articles? Materialscientist (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't everything in mainspace be referenced? No, I don't write in French and I haven't looked at other exonym articles. Assuming that you do and have, I trust your judgement and have withdrawn my revert and warning.   — Jeff G. ツ 09:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. A friendly advice is to write a short note instead of tagging user talk when you can't evaluate the correctness of certain edits. Both rollback and autotagging are offensive tools which do repel many potential writers. Unreferenced edits are gray area sometimes, and tagging users both for not providing refs and removing unreferenced information is, at least, inconsistent. Materialscientist (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you as well.   — Jeff G. ツ 09:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why he reverted my edits either?74.194.176.82 (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see the preceding section.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not vandalize anything.74.194.176.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC).

Jeff--

I need help in understanding why my edit of a paragraph in the article on O Holy Night was reverted and classified as vandalism. I gave my reason as "immaterial" when making the edit, as the passage referred to an occurrence of a famous song on an episode of a TV series, which struck me as highly insignificant without further explanation. Please help me to understand why this is vandalism. Is the explanation "immaterial" not in keeping with Wikipedia's policy? When a passage of mine was deleted by another user as "subjective" (and not reverted), I took this an indicator that such explanations should be short and sweet. Please give me input on this, in case I am not understanding the policy properly. Thank you.--Udpert (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This cannot be considered blatant vandalism - Rollback should never be used for this. Oh, Jeff... Doc9871 (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, please see my following reply.   — Jeff G. ツ 09:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The name of the section you edited was "Notable renditions". It appeared at the time that the rendition was by a notable character in a notable episode of a notable TV series, and could qualify as a notable rendition. I'm sorry I didn't notice at the time that the episode was a redlink. I have withdrawn my warning and reversion.   — Jeff G. ツ 09:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's always best to undo with an edit summary rather than rollback (except if someone writes "poopy" all over a page). This tool can come back to bite you... Doc9871 (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you as well.   — Jeff G. ツ 09:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. "I feel special!" ;P Doc9871 (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

From what is written at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supermegalith, it appears that Juan L. Bacigalupo (talk · contribs) doesn't quite understand Wikipedia's purpose. However, there is a genuine discipline of palaeoarchaeology, and if you take a look with Google Scholar and Google Books you will find several people writing about the history and problems of the field. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for that info. I'll try to look into those.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • ISBN 9780809315239 p 156–157 and the chapter by Clark in ISBN 9780387764788 are worth looking at. Uncle G (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I note your edit summary here. There's no reason for me to recuse from this particular case; however, I was inactive on this and several other cases, and I generally prefer to remain that way unless the request for amendment is very straightforward. In this case, I felt I didn't understand the nuances well enough without reviewing the entire case to be comfortable in participating in this decision. Risker (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jeff,

Whilst I appreciate your good intentions, any formal procedural work on cases, amendments, clarifications etc. should be performed only by Arbitration Clerks or Arbitrators themselves (and they prefer us to do so). If you see that a clerk has missed posted the majorities, as was the case in the Tothwolf case, please feel free to ping us on the Clerks' noticeboard. Regards Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being so WP:BOLD, and thanks for the info.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been editing with an account for a month and I have over 1,000 edits and I didn't earn an award. Wayne Olajuwon (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've presented the award. TFOWR 20:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You have 1,036 edits. Your first edit was 01:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC). At 01:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC) (in about two days five hours), you will be officially eligible for the Novice Editor (or Burba) Service award. You are responsible for advertising that fact once you have earned it. Thank you for your service, and congradulations!   — Jeff G. ツ 20:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

page was edited as the information was untrue and abusive. I was at the Draft and am a family member —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruckdashel (talk • contribs) 04:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In this edit, not only did you remove information without explanation (thank you for explaining above), but you also signed the article. We don't sign articles. That information remains removed from the article as it was unsourced.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)