User talk:Jeepday/Archive 4

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


Thanks for your concern. I wouldn't say that I have grand visions of helping. I had completed several sections, and I had signed up for several more. I wasn't aware there was anything wrong with claiming a section several days in advance of completing the section, especially because it didn't appear there were many other people actively participating in the project at the time (the completion percentages were not appreciably changing). I was taking my time working on them and trying not to rush through them because some of the articles have problems beyond just the stub concerns.

I'll go in and remove my names from the ones I haven't completed, assuming that is possible.

Please reply on my page, if you will. Jonneroo (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have completed one section and removed my names from the others. Jonneroo (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The material I added for the Parcham article came almost exclusively from Neamatollah Nojumi's work The Rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan (2002). I will cite that immediately in the discussion page of the Parcham article. Let me know if there is anything else needed. Thanks for the note. Mikepope (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I'm a school administrator and can rarely squeeze in time to edit on Wiki. I haven't been able to take the time to learn to cite correctly. I hope you forgive me, because the article has a good beginning... Mikepope (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I apologize for taking so long, I was experimenting to see if it actually worked. I don't understand what the sandbox thing is..could you please explain? I had every intention to revert it back, as I copied the original text to my computer. -Kempokaratedude- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kempokaratedude (talkcontribs) 15:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe there are enough comments on User talk:Kempokaratedude to point you in the right direction. Jeepday (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Yeah, I created that page.

I figured somebody out there agreed.

The word "Delusionism" is just silly.

I mean most people that seem to either call themselves deletionists or are accused of it, don't go around saying, "Grr! There's just TOO MUCH STUFF on Wikipedia! We need to delete MORE STUFF! If only Wikipedia had LESS stuff, it would be bettar!"

On the contrary, they're just very strict about adhering to policy whereas inclusionism is a bit more tolerant for stuff that skirts the edges of (and likely violates) policy, i.e. Back to the Future timeline.

They might focus on deletion, but that doesn't imply support for a blanket philosophy of deleting stuff.

Often, it's true that deletion can go too far, i.e. the cabal crusaders that regularly go after the user sub-pages of users they don't like.   Zenwhat (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Figured it was probably you. Jeepday (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfD nomination of Sobrante Park, Oakland, California

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sobrante Park, Oakland, California, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sobrante Park, Oakland, California. Thank you. CholgatalK! 01:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • So you know several are already up for deletion or merging if you would like to comment.CholgatalK! 06:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contradictory edits

Having the article say "near Orlando" and having the category say "in Orlando" is a contradiction and UNENCYLOPEDIC VANDALISM (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This editor is a suspected sock puppet. The M.O. of the user is the same, unilaterally changing categories and articles when consensus has establisheds something else. When challenged, editor resorts to name-calling and abusive language. Editor has been warned each and every time to use the proper methods, but the continuous creation of new sock puppets that do exactly the same thing suggests the warnings are no being heeded. The IP address has been added to the case file. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting read. Jeepday (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry about the typos above. Believe me, we've tried to discuss and be reasonable each and every time, but the puppeteer simply won't hear it. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Always have to try and assume good faith as long as you don't start feeding the trolls. Jeepday (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the ignorant ass in question in this particular discussion, I am merely restoring the Orlando category per all the previous discussions regarding its usage on Wikipedia -- that it is not intended to be strictly for the city limits of Orlando, but for the Orlando area... and that is why we can get away with saying "near Orlando" in the article text itself. I'm sure you've seen all the discussions on the Hollywood Studios talk page, the category talk page, the Disney Wikiproject talk page, on VegasWikian's talk page, or any of the CFD sections pertaining to the associated categories. Yes, there's been a lot of stuff going on with this set over the last few weeks. Fun stuff. Thank you for jumping in. SpikeJones (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just ran across the behavior issue while monitoring Special:Recentchanges, so have not been exposed to the fun stuff. Glad I could be of help. Jeepday (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free to watch the various disney/orlando attraction pages and you'll see it crop up again soon. The quick history is that back in 2007 the decision was made that the Category:Vistor Attractions in Orlando, Florida would be sufficient for the greater orlando area. Some people complain about WDW being advertised as "in Orlando", when it's outside the city limits. Then they got all specific about saying it was in "Bay Lake" or "Lake Buena Vista". Which they are, but there's no need to create that granular of a category just to represent 3 or 4 theme parks (hence the Orlando "area" usage). So it's been a lot of back-and-forth to keep things simple without having to create more useless categories, etc. I try to let admins who are aware of the situation know when I see all the changes happening so they can jump in and hopefully stop it. You just happened to wander through first. SpikeJones (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I am just looking for some feedback that I am doing the right things with respect to the above? (I'm diversifying from vandalism reverting). So far I have added references and removed or replaced the unreferenced tag for the following:

your feedback would be much appreciated, thanks! ascidian | talk-to-me 19:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My thoughts, keep in mind personal choice, style and desire to contribute play a big part on anything not covered by policy (and some that is).
  • Glass House (Budapest) Looks great, if there was anything that you felt was questionable you could remove it or place a {{fact}} as appropriate. You did good to use the {{refimprove}} or you could have used {{onesource}} personal choice.
  • Kitta Looks great also
  • Litigation mania I changed the {{expand}} to {{stub}}. The expand is usually used on articles that are longer then stub length but still have a significant gap in coverage. Other then that looks great, one reliable reference that supports the stub is fine so there is no need for a {{refimprove}} (this is a personal call that can go either way).
  • Krug Park Super job!
Everything you did is really good. You made great contribution's well within policy and expectations of the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles. When working articles from this project don't hesitate to be be bold. Keep up the great work. Jeepday (talk) 02:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the feedback and for taking the time to look! It is much appreciated. ascidian | talk-to-me 11:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. Back in December you initiated a transwiki of the WP article Echthroi to Wiktionary, and marked it (correctly) as lacking sources, although of course the main source is the two novels in which the characters appear. I must not have been paying attention at the time, because by the end of December it was gone from WP, leaving a brief entry in Wiktionary only, with redlinks that formerly worked in Wikipedia. I didn't discover all this until this month when I was working with the Madeline L'Engle nav box and/or one of the articles that linked to the WP version.

Here's my problem and question. In my view, the current state of affairs doesn't work very well, because in the English language, as far as I know, the word only refers to the demonesque Madeleine L'Engle non-characters, and has no general usage. Therefore it probably does not belong in Wiktionary. Redirecting to A Wind in the Door fails to include some of the (admittedly paltry) info in the original stub, or to acknowledge that the Echthroi reappear in A Swiftly Tilting Planet. Given that I have a couple of sources I can add that discuss the Echthroi (from The Swiftly Tilting Worlds of Madeleine L'Engle, and probably from Suncatcher and/or one of L'Engle's non-fiction works), I think it's probably worth reviving the article and building it up a bit. It will never be huge, but at least it can consolidate the info in one place and give a little more perspective than can be comfortably sustained in the article for either novel. I didn't start the stub in the first place, and hadn't gotten around to messing with it much, but it's certainly something I can rectify a bit. What do you think?--Karen | Talk | contribs 03:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my prod of the article it looks I checked for references but did not find anything that would make the article pass WP:NOT#DIR. I would encourage you to improve the article if you think you can make it encyclopedic. It is ok to include non-english usage in the article if it helps improve it and it is relevant. You can look to Staphylus for an attempt I made at an article that has similar challenges to Echthroi, but is significantly more notable with more sources and still needs significant work. Given the difficult of writing an encyclopedic article for Echthroi I might consider a disambiguation page that links to the two relevant works. That should meet the problem of a single redirect for multiple usage. If you decide to try for a full article I might suggest working on it at User:Mavarin/Echthroi so you can work towards the goal without the same expectations as if it was in the main article space. If I can be of any more help let me know. Jeepday (talk) 03:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I've pasted what I'm working on into userspace for now. So far I've expanded it a little bit, adding section breaks and a few refs. I've found several pages about the Echthroi in Presenting Madeleine L'Engle by Donald R. Hettinga, and I know for certain that at least two essays (by different authors) in The Swiftly Tilting Worlds of Madeleine L'Engle also discuss them. Carole F. Chase does not appear to mention them in Suncatcher, but there's a good chance that L'Engle talks about them in one or more of her non-fiction titles. I doubt that there's very much online; most L'Engle scholarship (aside from bios and bibliographies) is in book form. I'll grant you that it would seem to be just on the edge of notability, but they are important to two of L'Engle's most famous books, and are part of her recurring themes about the nature of evil, the importance of the individual, responsibility to the infinitely interdependent universe regardless of size or perceived importance, etc. I'm going to stop there for tonight, but I can and will do some more work on it over the weekend, working the concepts cited into the text rather than primarily just quoting them. If you get a chance, please take a peek at what I've got and see whether you think it's going to be good enough to keep, and whether it's ready to replace the redirect. Thanks for your help and advice! --Karen | Talk | contribs 05:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I took a look at User:Mavarin/Echthroi and made a couple modifications. I think the article is ready for the main article space but it is very one sided towards it usage in the Time Quartet. A google book search for Echthros returns 23 hits for books that are in the public domain [1] and 276 total only a small portion of which are written by L'Engle. Echthroi returns 145 on book hits.[2] You could probably post it just fine in it's current version but it would definitely be a candidate for {{globalize}}. Jeepday (talk) 13:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow. Thanks for the perspective and your addition. I'll look into tne other uses and expand accordingly before returning to article space. Thanks again! --Karen | Talk | contribs 14:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Template:MiniAWFP

Thanks, looks great! Voyaging (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I was removing redlinks to the twice deleted Pushead article, when I became concerned by the amount of mentions of his name, and the type of comments about him in the articles where his name appeared. I changed my mind and reverted my actions as there seemed to be the possibility of producing a credible article. I noticed that you said you would make available the deleted content on request. I'm requesting. Regards SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 16:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved it and it's history to User:SilkTork/Pushead, will leave a note on your talk page. Jeepday (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I've not been able to give this the attention I had hoped as I've been bogged down by real life. But it looks like a real borderline case. There are a number of mentions of the guy, though nothing by a solid silver reliable source. My thinking now is to put on a few of the weak sources I have come across, put the article back into mainspace and put it up for an AfD. It was previously speedied. Sometimes in an AfD people with a knowledge of the subject can supply decent sources. And if nothing can be brought up and it's deleted, then I can go back and remove the red links with confidence. What do you think? SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Putting an article through AFD to see if it will get improved is not an accepted practice. I would say don't put it in main space until you beleive it has a good chance of surviving AfD. That said, I agree the article is very borderline and it there are a lot of references out there. I really don't think it will take much to make it a viable article. Give it a shot and put it out there and see what happens. Jeepday (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. What happens happens. Thanks for your help. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 09:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ooops. I should have moved it, but I did a cut and paste instead. Sorry - I wasn't thinking. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 09:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have attempted to do a clean up and move it's not perfect but its better I hope. We will see what happens. Jeepday (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I happened to be looking at this page for other reasons and saw the exchange above. I've submitted the article to WP:ICU. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for a ruling

Hello Jeepday,

Could you take a look at this discussion? I asked for closing arguments, and none were given, but you can consider their previous defense of this text. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glenn Morshower

I just noticed you blocked User:Glenn Morshower for a period of a few hours. You might want to make that indefinite: Glenn Morshower. -WarthogDemon 02:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, I had seen the one edit Diff that looked ok, but when put in the string of edits would appear to be vandalism only. 02:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

History of the Philippines (1898–1946)


You tagged the History of the Philippines (1898–1946) article with {{Neutrality}} in this 08:51, October 5, 2007 revision. The article has gone through major changes since then, and I'm not sure what neutrality dispute issues might remain. I've proposed either discussing the disputed neutrality issues on the talk page, and I've stated my intention to remove the tagging if no discussion develops. Please chime in if you still see problems with the article. I'm not done editing the article, but I'm not working to a plan or a schedule -- discussion would be helpful. Cheers. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

will comment on talk page of article. Jeepday (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Did you just call me a troll? --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

??? --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Judging by your lack of response, I will assume that indeed you did. Please try to contribute to policy discussions constructively instead of jumping in to call those of us who are participating good-faith in those discussions "trolls." --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you assuming good faith? Jeepday (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. That's why I asked two days ago. It's "assume good faith" not "assume good faith forever." If you call someone a troll, and you don't want to stand by what you said and answer for it, or if you won't even respond when a third-party thinks you were talking to them, that uses up all the good faith I'm willing to grant someone who drives by an argument and jumps in with "hey guys, don't feed that troll!" --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS thanks for still not answering my question. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are assuming good faith, and are aware that between your second post here and your third on the 9th that I was not online. Then surely you have read the two articles I referred to a found that there are helpful suggestions that apply to the conversation. 03:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, because you were clearly ignoring your talkpage between my comment and your last post of the day: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Thanks in advance for answering my original question, whenever you get around to it, although I'd be obliged if you at least stooped to making the effort to give anything but Socratic responses. Something along the lines of "sorry for not responding quickly, I was not talking to you, I was talking about ____" or "sorry for not responding quickly, I was referring to you in my little a DFFT-and-run, and for some reason I consider that acceptable." Feel free to provide such a reason, if one could or does actually exist. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I am actively editing and have not responded then I am either busy or have chosen to not respond. Jeepday (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am finding this quite disturbing. Jeepday, if you're going to butt into a conversation and call someone a troll, the least you could do is say who it is. If someone goes out of their way to ask you "who were you talking about?" you really ought to answer them. This is far worse behavior than I expect from an admin (and before you give me that "admins are people too" spiel, don't forget that this is about you calling people trolls, and trolls get blocked by admins, so it's relevant). Please, for the last time, answer my question. Who were you calling a troll and why? Cryptic troll accusations do not help conversations and refusing to explain them is, quite honestly, extraordinarily rude. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you are assuming good faith [16] and there is no indication that I called anyone a troll,[17] the question is "Why did Jeepday think those two particular articles would be helpful at that point the conversation?". So when you are ready to ask appropriate questions and stop accusing me of uncivil behavior, let me know. Jeepday (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is absurd. This Socratic, tendentious garbage may sound witty to you, but I (and presumably others) can see that all you're really doing is refusing to explain what you said. If you don't want to do that, fine. Good work, that's admin behavior right there. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It'd also be nice to protect Plano Senior High School, it is todays FA. Rather than have vandals come launching at it. Somitho (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is getting out of hand, Can you please block him? Momusufan (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

let it go I will take care of it. Jeepday (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, now I can breath a little easier. lol. Momusufan (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Getting out of hand?? LOL. You're the jackass who kept editing my talk page. You started it, and you can end it by stopping.
Please stay WP:CIVIL take a breath and let it go. Jeepday (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
HE'S the guy who keeps editing my talk page. How is it fair that some guy can edit my talk page, but I can't edit it now because it's been protected? It's MY talk page. I have control over what is on it, and I don't want the Whois information displayed, plain and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I beleive the Whois info is not at your discretion to remove, I am checking on it now. If you can find something that says other wise let me know. Jeepday (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. still checking if this applies to the who is, if someone finds something let me know. Jeepday (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:Talk page

Well User:Jayron32 says "Note: IP addresses do not have the same rights to control their own userspace as do registerred users. Since only registerred users can be shown to be a single user, only they may blank and otherwise control their own talk pages. If you would like a talk page and userspace you can control, then create an account when the block expires. --Jayron32". And C.Fred says the same thing too. Momusufan (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there is a conflict of opinion between a user and policy, which do you think should be followed? Jeepday (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User is not an IP address. They are different things.

Users are people with usernames. IP editors are not users, since there is no guarantee that the person removing the warnings is the person who was warned. The benefit of creating a user account is the ability to deal with your own userspace as you see fit. IP address pages, since they are not controled by a single person, "Belong" to Wikipedia itself, and should not be blanked... 02:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per what policy? Jeepday (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well Dynamic IP's are given to different people, ex: may be used by one person, but eventually, that IP will be released after about 10 days and another user will get that IP. Shared IP's are within a corporation or school and many users may be on the same IP, not just one person. So I think that IP editors are not the same person sometimes. Momusufan (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So where is the policy that says an IP is can not delete content from the talk page? Jeepday (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Momusufan explains it quite well. Also, if you read pages such as WP:WHY, you see that clearly the right to manage your own userspace is clearly listed as a benefit accorded to registered users only. Removing content from an IP talk page is no different than removing content from any other page. The right to remove content from your own talk page is an exception to the rule accorded only to registered users, per WP:WHY. 02:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just looked through the whole thing, don't see anything that says only registered users can edit their talk pages. I also did a google search "should not be blanked" [18] and did not find any policy saying IP's are restricted from this activity. Additionally the Whois template is added by Momusufan here and I am not finding anything that prohibits the IP from removing it as well. Jeepday (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: User talk:, you can do whatever you think is the most appropriate action, but blocked users can still edit their talk page, so I don't know how good of an idea that would be. VegaDark (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks I would like to, unprotect the page so the editor can contribute. Jeepday (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want, but be prepared to revert if he blanks his page again. VegaDark (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The whole thing is that user talk pages are meant to communicate with a person. With an IP address, the person removing the comments may not be the person to whom they were intended. Since there is no guarantee that the person removing the comments is the same person for whom they were left, it is common sense that such practice should be restricted. If you are looking for a specific policy stating so you are not going to find one. However, edits made to IP talk pages, like everything else at Wikipedia, is adjudged on a case-by-case basis. If an IP user blanks or otherwise modifies their own talk page in a disruptive manner, they may be blocked for disruption for doing so. If they continue to be disruptive, the talk page may be protected. Removing info in one case may be allowed, and in another case may be seen as disruptive, based on the specifics of each case. The user in this case was clearly being disruptive, and was dealt with appropriately. 02:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok ,we disagree. I will make a post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and see if a consensus exists that I am not aware of. If the editor was the same person then they are allowed to remove their own warnings, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines if they are not the same person then the warnings do not apply to them as the new "owner" of the IP an they can remove them per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines Jeepday (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not vandalism...

Im trying to help w/ the vandalism on the Montreal canadiens page. Please do me a favor by either leaving the page alone or making it better. The logo part is in need of repair.

Unless you want the Canadiens to be known as the Winger Dingers, go right ahead and deface the hockey team.

Link to article : —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dback666 (talkcontribs) 04:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Skopelos "This article needs additional citations for verification".

Thanks for checking on this article. The article has improved greatly since its earlier versions as a basically a PR page for tourism promotion. Your specific question to me about the "Staphylus - Staphylos" myth has been cited. The Skopelos article in comparison with other Greek Island pages does very well (see Mykonos) but could and should do better (see Corfu). In my opinion would be helpful to move the "This article needs additional citations for verification" banner to the bottom of the page. Skopelos-Slim (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just did a quick look between when I tagged it with {{refimprove}} and now. There have been 7 changes that add 3 wiki links and one reference to Encyclopedia Mythica for the topic of "Staphylus". In my opinion the article is still significantly under sourced and does not meet the expectation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Without addressing the question of Encyclopedia Mythica as a reference for Wikipedia, the reference does not even support the first sentence of the paragraph that say Staphylus found Skopelos. Jeepday (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps it is my English but I see in the 2nd paragraph of the Encyclopedia Mythica about Staphylus reference that the island was bequeathed to Staphylus and that he founded the colony called Peparethos - (which was the name of the island throughout antiquity). As the article states this is "in island legend". Most likely this is a story used for centuries to describe the origins of the island and its dependence on viniculture. That the island was originally named Peparethos (a mythic son of a mythic god) within which there is a geographical area called Staphylos (a mythic son of a mythic god), and that this island was known as a wine producing center simply reinforces the legend. It doesn't mean the legend is true.
Should I have reason to doubt the scholarship of the author of the Encyclopedia Mythica article? I get the sense that you don't approve. Skopelos-Slim (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The changes in names and spellings are difficult for anyone not familure with the area. so "town of Peparethos (now the main town of Scopelos)" just did not register with me because I was looking for Skopelos with a K. I know see how you meant the reference to relate.
Encyclopedia Mythica as a reference. If the only reference you can find for something is there where did they get the information from? If you can find a reference in a peer reviewed work or other work that meets WP:SOURCES that would be better. When I did a search [19] trying to find a WP:RS the best I came up with (using Scopelos or Skopelos) was [1] which says "Peparethus now Piperi, the smallest of the islands hitherto enumerated but perhaps the most celebrated of all Pliny observes that it was formerly called Evaenus and assigns to it a circuit of nine miles IV 12 It was colonized by some Cretans under the command of Staphylus". Do what ever you think is best. Jeepday (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for the reference. I get the sense from reading a bit of it that Cramer was a little confused. His references to island names bear some relation to later British Admiralty charts(1848) which state Skopelos as Skopelos but Alonissos as Chelidromi. Piperi still is Piperi. Skopelos-Slim (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
your welcome. Jeepday (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Cramer, John Anthony Cramer (1828). A Geographical and Historical Description of Ancient Greece:. Original from the University of Michigan: Clarendon Press. pp. Page 452. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) : "no active vandalism"?

Thanks for responding to my post re. ongoing vandalism from user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I'm not familiar with the procedure for reporting ongoing vandalism from a single user ... could you clarify why you marked this as "no active vandalism"? Was the problem that I added this to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism rather than WP:ANI, or that you felt it was an incorrect report, and shouldn't have been listed at either page? Thanks in advance for the clarification. Best, -- Docether (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the question, the green template "Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism" has 3 points that come together for dealing with vandals at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism the second one (The vandal must be active now, and have vandalised after sufficient recent warnings to stop) relates to your question. The goal of blocking vandalism is "to protect Wikipedia and its editors from harm". So if the current vandalism streak has been stopped by issuing warnings then blocking has no constructive effect, it would have a negative effect of preventing non-vandals from editing if the IP is shared or not-static. To treat ongoing vandalism we might use Banning which is different but may use blocking to enforce. If the IP had vandalize after you posted the last warning at 13:39 it would probably have been blocked for between 12 and 72 hours (most likely for 24 or 31 hours) as it would be the first block. But the last vandalism occurred at 11:54 just before cluebot posted the third warning. Note sure I answered all your questions but hopefully at least pointed you towards where they are. If you more questions please ask. Jeepday (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That does make it clearer; thanks for the guidance. Best, -- Docether (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Jeepday a Wikipedia Administrator?

Jeepday, you recently warned me against "vandalizing" the UW page. I did not vandalize it. Rather, I began making changes that will present a more neutral view of the University, which is not the utopia you seem to think it is.

Are you a Wikipedia administrator? IF NOT, then I caution you against making any more threats against me. Impersonating a Wikipedia administrator is a much more serious violation of Wiki rules than my making changes to an article.

Please let me know if you're a Wikipedia administrator. I assume that you're not since you are listed simply as a Wiki "user".

One last thing: Your inappropriate and offensive warnings are a somewhat ironic violation of your own mantra (at the top of your user page):

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

P.S. Please respond on my talk page. Thanks.(Tortugadillo (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

What's vandalism..?

I looked at your last msg--I agree that my change to the UW's slogan was not objective or verifiable. I'll work harder to make my changes/additions as objective as possible and with references as much as possible.

It is very disturbing to have someone like you threaten to bar me from working on articles. As for your link (in your msg to me) to what you said was the "vandalism", it only referenced one change (to the "Numen lumen" box). Yet, you also reverted my other changes to the page, including one pointing out that the UW has slipped in rankings over the past 25 years. That absolutely is NOT vandalism. It is true, it is objective, and it is VERIFIABLE. It is misleading to present facts out of context, as the article does throughout.

You clearly have a vested interest in the UW, and I guarantee that that article is not even close to being neutral. There is a lot of controversy and mismanagement at the UW-Madison right now.

Keep in mind that many Wiki articles are NOT neutral--Rather, they are written by people with a vested interest in the subject they are writing about. (Tortugadillo (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Re: Wisconsin Idea

You also reverted my edits to the Wis. Idea article. I caution you against abusing your "administrator" powers by reverting valid edits and then threatening to ban me if I make more changes.

The Wisconsin Idea is exactly what I said it was: an arcane, outmoded ideal that is only observed when it serves politics or economic advancement. Yet, the "article" pretends that it's some great, overriding philosophy that guides everyone who works at the UW. It is not. That article was woefully biased (not neutral), and your reversion was vandalism. Now it's biased again. How can we resolve this? (Tortugadillo (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

    • I always try to use references, but I'll try even harder. However, you must be aware that much of what's already written in the UW-Madison article is not referenced. What will you do about that..? I presume you work for the UW or the State of Wis. If so, then any action by you banning me from WP would be serious indeed. Let's hope there's no need for that. Meanwhile, thanks for your pointers. (Tortugadillo (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

iRMX page

Not sure what sort of additional citations and external references are needed to consider this page meeting "general notability guidelines." I work for TenAsys, who are the current keeper and developer for iRMX and INtime. The owners are former Intel employees that worked on iRMX a long time ago.

The INtime page is not yet developed, and the iRMX page was pre-existing. I substantially updated the iRMX page in order to bring it up-to-date. Have not had time to provide a similar page for the INtime RTOS, which is a derivative of iRMX.

Given that I represent TenAsys, who is the exclusive licensed vendor for iRMX, and that TenAsys is a valid "Company," according to the definition given on the "notability page," isn't that sufficient? The sources provided at the end refer directly to our web site. All current iRMX documentation is published and maintained by us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XMNboy (talkcontribs) 18:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please review again, external references have been added. XMNboy (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks much better, good work. Jeepday (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How does one fix the entry point of the article so it is actually for "iRMX" and not "RMX" and simultaneously make sure that all references to RMX become references to iRMX? The article as originally written was placed under the name "RMX" which is common usage, but would be more correctly listed as "iRMX." XMNboy (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Due to technical issues it is not possible to have the first character lower case, so "iRMX" is not possible. The article can be "IRMX", which already exists and redirects to the page "RMX". Because a number of people have edited the article, and there are some RMX systems that are not iRMX (like DOS-RMX} the correct thing to do is post on the talk page a recommendation to move the article to "IRMX". Depending on the outcome of that, we can move it. There is nothing urgent here, so post the move suggestion and if there consensus or no comment in a month or so let me know and I can help with the move. Jeepday (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About the AIV thing

Please take a look at this. He is a persistent vandal who's supposed to be blocked on sight, even without warnings, and I was told to take it to WP:AIV to report any socks of him. He was also blocked anyway. Either way, please reconsider next time. Thanks. --AAA! (AAAA) 14:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Blocking an account that has not been warned, is not actively vandalizing, and does not have an edit history that is clearly vandalism goes against almost everything at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism, except for the line Obvious and malicious sockpuppets may be reported to AIV. A link to the sockpuppetry report should be included in the reason for reporting. If the admin is not familiar with the Sock they are not going to feel comfortable blocking the IP unless it is really clear to them. As you can imagine not every thing that gets posted to AIV gets blocked. Jeepday (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: What's this about?

Ah, crap, I forgot to rm the AIV report, didn't I? Man, I'm such an idiot...sorry! Two One Six Five Five τ ʃ 16:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Sock

I would like a second opinion on this, based on This Checkuser request, he is known to be at that same article. Momusufan (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I filed the checkuser request Here. Momusufan (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool, thanks. That seems like a good idea. Jeepday (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I figured I follow up on that checkuser case againest FCBarsalona to see if it was Beh-nam who is banned, well according to the Checkuser Case FCBarsalona is a confirmed sock to Beh-nam. Momusufan (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the follow up. Jeepday (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I get a ruling on these two issues?

And this one:

Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested and given. Jeepday (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted Page Content

I had a page that I wasn't able to finish before it got deleted. I can't remember how much content I put on it, but probably minimal. I then went on an extended business trip and found the article deleted when I returned. No problem. I intend now to put the whole article together offline and then upload the whole thing when I get it done.

The article was called, Heritage Christian School of Northern Colorado. It was deleted because it had no context. The fact was that it had little if any content.

Thanks, Dreeser (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings Jeepday!

I just restored a boilerplate which you removed from this article. The fact is: there are some pretty substantial claims being made, none of which are supported by any references. If there was a reason you removed it, and I am not aware of it, please let me know, and I will be happy to remove it again. Have a great day! LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for dropping me a note. The reason I removed the {{Unreferenced}} is because they are some references on the article, it is only for articles that are completely unreferenced. I often work the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where we remove the {{unreferenced}} and replace it with {{refimprove}} after adding a reference, or just changing the templates if there are references on the article. Evanston Township High School already had the {{refimprove}} in the reference section, I simply removed the one that was not correct. I personally like to place the either of these templates at the top of the article, but placing them in the reference section is an accepted option, so instead of moving the {{refimprove}} I just left it where it was. You could move the {{refimprove}} to the top of the page and remove the {{unreferenced}}. It is also appropriate to remove text to the talk page if you have question it's authenticity (with a note on why). The Burden is the editor who wants to include text to supply references if the content is challenged. Jeepday (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That all sounds good to me. Sorry for that. I will remove the boilerplate, and move the improvement boilerplate to the top. Thank you for educating me on this. I will be more attentive to this in the future. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marc KJH

I think I have the freedom of speech. Marc KJH (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • You do, but it is a privilege on Wikipedia not a right. Jeepday (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Freedom of speech doesn't equal freedom to move articles against the consensus or to make unfounded allegations of vandalism against me. Thanks for your help Jeepday. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article should be restored to "Romani people" not to "Roma people" since the initial move to "Roma people" was made even without a discussion. The user that first made the move to "Roma people" is also a vandal. AKoan (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, yesterday, my article DungeonLegends was deleted. Can you send a copy of it? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hucki (talkcontribs)

Your note

Thank you for the offer, but I just wouldn't have much use for admin tools here. I kind of like not feeling responsible for anything but my own edits when I am over here. If I were to find more time/motivation for doing administrative or problem-solving tasks I would use it over at the English Wikisource where I am a b'crat. Frankly I don't think someone with no enthusiasm for using the admin tools at en.WP will pass an RfA and I would rather not waste everyone's time.

On another subject; I think the {{clean-up}} category will soon overtake the {{unreferenced}} category. Then we can declare it the clear-cut worst backlog on Wikipedia.--BirgitteSB 04:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Some of the {{clean-up}} tags are older even though there are less of them. But soon they will overtake {{unreferenced}} based on the rate of progress in each category.--BirgitteSB 13:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I respect your feelings for freedom and I would hope that the community would support an RfA for you based on trust. In my own RfA under the question "What admin work do you intend to take part in?" I said in part "while in theory a successful candidate for adminship could answer "None", I have not see it. I beleive that you are a candidate that could answer "None" and succeed. While some individuals make choices based on personal views the majority make good decisions based on wikipolicy, and there is nothing in WP:ADMIN that requires an editor to use the admin tools. Jeepday (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Let me think about it and actually watch RfA's for a month.--BirgitteSB 13:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Actually I changed my mind. Go ahead and nominate me. I have an interview that will be in the Signpost either next week or the following one and is probably fairer to do this now before it runs; than to do it next month. I am also letting User:TimVickers know since he asked me some time ago to inform him if I ever changed my mind about this. One request: please don't respond to opposers. Just let them have their say, or if something is inaccurate I will clarify it.--BirgitteSB 17:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL- the only participation I had with this article was to remove the copyright violation tag. There was no violation. With regards to Speedy Delete, I am not so sure about that. If you do a quick search on Google News you are going to get some pretty impressive coverage of the organization, as shown here. [20]. My advice would be to remove the tag and see if you can improve the piece with the information I just provided. If you still feel it should go, nominate at Afd and let consensus guide you. If you need any help, drop me a note and will be happy to give a hand. Good luck. ShoesssS Talk 03:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Actually it is a copyvio as every word in the article is copy and paste from but short quotes are generally acceptable, so I did not delete it for the copyvio. {{db-bio}} does not address if the subject is actually notable only if it has "content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Jeepday (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My apologies on the copyright - your right when I first looked I though a free use page but than dug deeper and found this on one of the sub-pages: "Copyright &Logo Use All items on this website are licensed for use under the U.S. copyright law and the sole property of IAATO. Any use of the information, images, text or graphics is strictly prohibited without the written consent of IAATO". Images may be used for personal and non-commercial publication only. To be honest, if you are going to delete under speedy, I would go with the copyright violation. The organization it self, again you are right, the author did not make the claim of notability, but a case could be made. Let me know which way you are going to go. I think I could do a stub in a couple of days, once I clear my platter of some other articles, but will not worry about if you are going to delete. Thanks for point out my near sightedness today. Time to change my eyeglass prescription :-). ShoesssS Talk 03:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I was working Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 February 16/Articles when I found it, so I don't have any vested interest in the subject. I will just let it ride out the speedy and see what happens. I prefer to have at least two judgments when deleting anything that is not vandalism; one tagger and one deleter, and as many reviewers that happen by in between. Jeepday (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Funny, that’s where I ran across the piece. FYI, I rewrote the opening sentence and added a small bit of other information and cited the sources. I’ll work on it on over the next couple of days to see what happens. In the mean time I did place a {hangon} on the piece, so that should give me a couple of days to see if I can improve. Thanks for the help. ShoesssS Talk 04:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like you saved it. :) Jeepday (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One small step for Wikipedia One giant step for User:shoessShoess :=). Actually I want to start expanded it at this point. It is an interesting group, from what I just recently read. Take care and again, thanks for your help.13:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)ShoesssS TalkReply[reply]


Thanks for the review and your decision sounds good. The image is currently an orphan. Do you know of an appropriate article for it? -Thanks, Nv8200p talk 03:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How do you figure this is not a copy vio? It is copy and paste from a work that was not published to Wikipedia by the original author. All works are copyrighted unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed. Jeepday (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment - In that the original Blog came in off of YouTube, as noted on the page. And Youtube is not copyrighted , hence my decision was no violation . However, I leave the final decision with someone with more experience. If you feel it was has a copyright violation, I am not going to argue. You already provide me wrong once :-). ShoesssS Talk 04:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I will delete it. Unless you can point to something that very specifically says there is no copyright, it is copyrighted. As a general rule stuff over 100 years old or from most US government sources is about the only thing in the public domain. Even if it from a another GFDL you have to reference the source to meet the requirements of GFDL. Jeepday (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Testosterone loader

Re your message: I deleted the article because the original author had previously added a hangon, but then made no effort to dispute the deletion of the article. If you think I deleted it too quickly, you're welcome to restore it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk)

Thanks - I restored it to User talk:GreYFoXGTi/Testosterone loader seemed like the best idea all things considered. Jeepday (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine, though realistically, the long term viability of the article is not good. A hack/bot tool for a MMORPG is not likely to be notable. It also being essentially a dump of the program's readme file does not look good. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No disagreement, but the editor has not had time to learn that yet. If they come back, they can learn about our policies and find something more appropriate to write about. Jeepday (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on User talk:GreYFoXGTi/Testosterone loader, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:User talk:GreYFoXGTi/Testosterone loader|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. --Atyndall93 (talk | contribs) 06:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't realise you had reposted it there until I had csd'd it. Feel free to remove. If you wish to respond to this comment, please post on my talk page. Thankyou. --Atyndall93 (talk | contribs) 06:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done thanks :) Jeepday (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Considering his messages to me I think it's User:Adam Pirolo. -WarthogDemon 02:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

looks like someone else agrees with you, my temp block got changed to indefinite. Jeepday (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And it also looks like I got beaten to letting you know about it. D: I bumped up to it to indef because he did some particularly malicious vandalism that actually ended up segfaulting the affected pages. Hope you don't mind. east.718 at 03:03, March 31, 2008
I don't mind, I often give short blocks to stop the activity, then review somemore before stretching it out. If you had not stretched it I probably would have. Jeepday (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks ever so much for your help with the TyrusThomas4lyf sock. He's a recurring character around those pages, thanks for taking care of this sock. Take care! Redrocket (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: restore

Yeah, I started to leave you a note about it, but I was so immersed in Ukrainian copyright law and all those images listed on the /Images for March 3 that I forgot how to speak English. :-) I'm not sure they want a nurse from Oklahoma to judge if they are in the PD or not, but nobody else has stepped up in the last 27 days to do it themselves, so here I go. Ugh. People stick stuff over there and forget about it while AFD and CSD get all the attention.

Thanks for helping out over there, 'cause I did a full 29 days worth of that backlog alone, by myself, solitarily, on my own. I feel like I've been stuck in Siberia. Or the Ukrainian copyright agency. ;-) - KrakatoaKatie 03:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You done good :) I started to look at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 March 3, saw that Ukrainian copyright stuff, decided I needed more experience before I went down that path, was considering if March 3 could wait until I did a few more days before I got to it. Jeepday (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much for the barnstar! I'm sorry for getting here so late today, but I'm dragging Accelerate day out as long as possible. :-D I was a little wary of wading into the Ukrainian stuff too because I remember some drama several months ago about Ukrainian army service insignia being copyrighted or not. But after I got into these particular images a bit, I saw that their uploaders and other interested people weren't too upset – they plan to resubmit similar images tagged for fair use with rationales instead of the PD in the Ukraine licenses originally given. I figure if the images have been sitting there reported but undisturbed for a month and the uploaders were notified of the reports at the time, they had their chances to relicense or whatever. Sometimes if the original uploader wasn't properly notified and is still an active editor, I'll re-tag it and notify them myself, to be nice and unrougey.
I think that list was like the last two AFDs remaining before a day's log is closed, when they've both got six 'arbitrary section breaks' and dozens of !votes and everyone is calling everyone else names, and nobody wants to dig through the pages on pages and close them, to get it done. Somebody's got to do it, so it may as well be me or you. Back to my R.E.M.-fest now – I heard these songs on bootlegs from Dublin last summer, and I haven't been able to wipe the grin off my face since I got the album this morning. I'm just... very, very happy. I missed them. Anyway, thanks again! - KrakatoaKatie 06:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked user procedure

If a blocked user comes back after the block expires and carries on vandalising as before, should further warnings be given before requesting another block? Astronaut (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is best to always assume good faith, post a level four warning at least and let the user repeat before submitting. If you can show that all the edits after the block are vandalism then you may be able to get a block even if the have not been warned recently. The next block the use gets will probably be permanent. Jeepday (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The provided link was wrong. I have readded the copyvio tag now. Could you have another look please? --Eleassar my talk 18:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please show me a couple of sentences that are the same or strongly simular in the article and the potential source. I spent several minutes and did not find a copyvio. Jeepday (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Pre-school education, offered by pre-school institutions, is not compulsory. It includes children between the ages of 1 and 6. The curriculum is divided in two cycles (from 1 to 3 and from 3 to 6). The new curriculum promotes different types of programme such as: day, half-day and short programmes. There is also the possibility of childminders, pre-school education at home or occasional care of children in their homes. The Curriculum for Pre-school Institutions defines six areas of activities: movement, language, art, nature, society and mathematics. The goals set in individual fields of activities provide the framework for the selection of contents and activities by teachers."

"Basic education was extended from eight years to nine. This was done gradually. The implementation of the nine-year basic education began in the 1999/2000 school year. Children that reach the age of 6 in a particular calendar year enter the first class in that year.

Nine-year basic education is divided into 3 three-year cycles. Elementary schools provide the compulsory and extended curriculum. The compulsory curriculum must be provided by school and studied by all pupils. It consists of compulsory subjects, electives, home-room periods and activity days (culture, science, sports, technology). The optional elementary school curriculum must be provided by school but pupils are free to decide whether they will participate in it or not. It includes educational assistance for children with special needs, remedial classes, additional classes, after-school care and other forms of care for pupils, interest activities and out-of-school classes.

Successful completion of basic education enables pupils to proceed to education in their choice of secondary school. Pupils who fulfil the legal compulsory education requirement and successfully complete at least seven classes in the nine-year elementary school can continue their education in a short-term vocational education programme. Success at that level opens doors to other more demanding secondary school programmes."

Etc. etc. --Eleassar my talk 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are correct, there are two choices.
  1. Revert back to a no copyvio version - I believe the original version is not a copyvio Hist
  2. remove the copyvio (cite the source in the edit summary} and shorten the article.
You can do these yourself if I am mistaken and there are no non-copyvio versions let me know and I will delete the article. If you would prefer that I do the deleting or reverting just let me know, you seem more familiar with the subject so I give you first choice of approach. Jeepday (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, thanks for confirming I was not seeing ghosts. I deleted everything now but have restored the first several revisions that were not copyvio. --Eleassar my talk 19:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Slate and Stylus

Updated DYK query On 5 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Slate and stylus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anonymous user

Dear Jeepday, I know that has made only two edits but only under that IPaddress but if you check in the Demographics of Argentina history you will realize that different IPaddress have made the same edits (,, I am absolutly sure that he will continue vandalising the article what should I do?

Fercho85 04:38 05 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is for active vandalism, if you take a look in the green box you will see the three points; number 2 is "The vandal must be active now, and have vandalised after sufficient recent warnings to stop.", which the IP does not meet. What you want to do is is read about then make a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. One of the things that is important is the you identify the edits that are similar so that it will be as clear to other editors as it is to you. A second thing to consider is if the IP has only made two edits under the current address what makes you think they will return under the IP address they are using today? Jeepday (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jeepday as I expected and told you, the anonymous user (this time with IP address vandalised again the article Demographics of Argentina he has been warned more than once could you block this IP?

Fercho85 01:53 07 April 2008 (UTC)

The vandal uses a different IP each time, I have semi protected the page for awhile instead of applying a range block that would have had to much undesirable impact. Jeepday (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excuse me, who is the real vandal here? Have you even bothered to check the nature of these edits? There was an edit war, and you automatically sided with the registered user without even checking what was being discussed. I have a right to edit the article as much as any other user, all my edits were backed by sources and Fercho85 kept reversing them simply because he feels he owns the article.
He was not even willing to discuss the images of the article, and kept reverting everything and deleting my sources! Who is the real vandal here? You are not really doing your job as a moderator if you simply block a page without looking into the reality of the dispute. Stop the discrimination against anonymous users. -- (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no activity on the article talk page, which is where edit disputes should be discussed. If you feel that is a problem that should be take to another level then by all means do so. Jeepday (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's that supposed to mean? I don't want the dispute to be taken to another level. I only want you, as an administrator, to try to look into both sides of the argument and take a look at the edit history before taking sides. I agree that both me and Fercho85 failed to talk out our differences, but if you look at the edit history, you will see that he started deleting my sources and changing back the image to his unrealistic touristy promotion shot in the first place. A request for arbitration and unblocking the page would be nice.-- (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What argument? There has not been a edit on the talk page for 2 months. It is either an edit war or Vandalism. If you would like to open discussions on the talk page and need moderator, I will be willing to work with all the editors towards solution. There does not appear to be consensus for the edits, you are making. If you get consensus I will support it, if you there are only two points yours and another I will facilitate towards a solution within policy. Jeepday (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for your inquiry. Check out this link and also this one. The citation is a bit arcane, let me know if I got it wrong. Regards, Haiduc (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly what in either of those reference leads you to the conclusions you posted [21]? Jeepday (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking a little more I see, "Eromenos" is traditionally translated into English as "beloved", although this is not a perfect match for the concept. and that both links seem to be rooted in the same translation and I note that at the end of the suda on line reference the assumptions are questioned. Because we are not seeing the original it is impossible to tell if the word Eromenos was used or if another word was translated into beloved. Thoughts? Jeepday (talk) 04:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From that same page:

Greek Original: )Ene/xeij: e)ki/rnaj. )Aristofa/nhj: ei) Qa/sion e)ne/xeij ei)ko/twj ge, nh\ Di/a. w(j tou= Qasi/ou oi)/nou eu)o/smou o)/ntoj. o( ga\r Sta/fuloj, o( e)rw/menoj Dionu/sou, e)n Qa/sw? w)/?kei: kai\ dia\ tou=to diafe/rei o( Qa/sioj oi)=noj. Haiduc (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Which of those groups of letters and symbols is "eromenos" or "eromenoi" (Greek ἐρώμενος, ἐρώμενοι ? As there is not a clear usage of the word "eromenos" what are the other possible meanings? How come you choose not list the link to the translation in the article? Jeepday (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Suda reference seemed sufficient to me originally (until I tried to search for it using those coordinates and failed). So I certainly have no objection to including now the actual url, as I did above for you. Which letters?! "Sta/fuloj, o( e)rw/menoj Dionu/sou," or, "Stafuloi o eromenoi Dionusou." By the way, let me know when you answer me here. Regards, Haiduc (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds reasonable. I got jumpy and deleted it when I did not hear back from you, I will go ahead and restore it with the link as a reference. Once I get that done I will leave you a note at your talk page. Jeepday (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Haiduc (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jeepday,

Thanks for offering to write articles for the Wikipedia Signpost tutorial series. Just letting you know that we have run out of tutorials to use in the Signpost, and so if you have time, it would be great if you could make a start with some of the topics that you have claimed, but not yet finished! Thanks! enochlau (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Belated Thank You

Thanks for the barnstar a while back. Sorry this is so late, but I've had about six minutes to myself in the last two weeks. Makes me want to jump right back in to the copyright mess (well, not really). Anyways, it is appreciated. --DO11.10 (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles lacking sources from June 2006

I wish there was a way to isolate the Hawaii-related articles from the list. Do you know of a way, aside from downloading the database? I could run AWB I suppose...any ideas? Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only way I could see is to look at the categories and match them up. You could copy the article titles out of each category then do a check for matches. Jeepday (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I would be happy to get to work if you had some way of moving the Hawaii-related articles into Category:Unreferenced Hawaii articles‎ Viriditas (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just prodded peanut juice and asked the classical music project to help out with Piano Concerto No. 2 (Beethoven). I'll see if I can make a bigger dent tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great! if we all just do 2 or 3 a day we should get it done in a week or so. Jeepday (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible copyvio.

Hi contacting you since you seem to be active at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems. Could you take a look at Drummoyne DRFC and [22]? I have reported this, but have not blanked the page since our article is not an exact match. I have trouble not seeing our article as a derived work though so I am unsure about how to proceed. Taemyr (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because it was a clear copyvio, less then 48 hours old and had been previously deleted as a copyvio, I speedy deleted it and left a note at User talk:Evilhamish. Thanks for pointing that out, if you see anything like this again you can use {{db-copyvio|url=url of source}} to request it be speedily deleted. Jeepday (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jim Haskins & Pornograph

Hello. I see you have moved to delete the article on Jim Haskins. I seem to be the creator and the only one who really edited it. I think the page should be left as he is an author with many books and a radio personality. On another note, I see from your user page that you are willing to give me the text to deleted articles. Could I have the text of the deleted article on Pornograph? Thanks a tons! Ask D.N.A.- Peter Napkin (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are welcome to contest the PROD by removing it, if you do so I will probably take it to WP:AFD for deletion consideration. If you are going to contest the prod I would strongly suggest reading Wikipedia:Notability (people) and if available add referenced content to support meeting the notability.
As for Pornograph there has not been a deletion since July of 2006, after the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pornograph, are you sure that is that article you are looking for? It is short and starts with "A pornograph is a small device that plays sounds; specifically sounds associated with pornography". Jeepday (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's the one. About Jim Haskins, I'm a bit confused as to what you meant as G hits for him in the prod. I'm not really contesting the PROD because I can understand why it was put in place. I'm currently shapping up the article so as for to make it more clear why he is notable. I have some book reviews of him that put him into greater contex as author, but not sure if it's alright to add the information since it is not an internet source, but is a physical, magazine/journal type of source. Also, do you think it is notable that he wrote tons of books for children? Ask D.N.A.- Peter Napkin (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Provided last version at User talk:Peter Napkin Party/Pornograph
G hits means Google search results for the query [23] was 9 web sites as these are mostly Wikipedia or the station, it shows he is not notable for the radio station. If you can show that he meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals you should remove the prod tag. Adding reference from hardcopy is fine, Tutorial: Adding citations can help you format the reference correctly. "Writing tons of books" is only notable if there are multiple reliable references discussing the work, paid reviews or publisher blurbs are not generally sufficient. Let me know if you need help. Jeepday (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • So, do you envision the new article focusing on what he is most known for, writing of the books, even though today he is mostly known for hosting the WMUB radio station? I think that most people listening to the station would find him notable for radio, while most people reading his books would find him notable for the books. It's a tough decision, but I think I'll stick with the books since that's where the sources are. Also, i made another aticle called Mother of the Forest but i'm not sure how I can force people to improve it or link to that page. Any ideas?Ask D.N.A.- Peter Napkin (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are not going to be able to meet notability for him with the radio station, so if you can do something with the books do that. You can include the radio but you have to show his is notable first. As for Mother of the Forest you can't force anyone to do anything on Wikipedia. I will take a look at and make some improvements. Jeepday (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kewl, thx23:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Napkin Party (talkcontribs)

Hi, Jeepday - just a heads-up that I listed the above image for deletion at IFD. While it does have a Creative Commons license, the specific license is a noncommercial one, which isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Kelly hi! 04:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was thinking that per Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Can_I_use_an_image_from_someone_else.27s_Wikipedia_article_in_my_article.3F it is ok to use the image on wikipedia but that the licensing is wrong. but on further thought I believe you are correct per Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Non-commercial_licenses, I will go delete it. Thanks for pointing that out for me. Jeepday (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: striking

Hi - thanks, but I know how to strike the reviewed articles. We were working on the same section at the same time, and I had the edit window open longer than you did. Go with the flow.

A larger problem is editors or even admins who either fix or simply remove the notices on articles without so much as a note anywhere. That's what drove me crazy for a while - then last week, I got a little stuffed AFLAC duck as a gift. It's so great! I squeeze it and, honest to God, it quacks and says, "Aflac. Aflac. AFLAC!!!!" It's taken all my stress away. Well, not really, but it's fun to squeeze when I'm frustrated.

For 95% of the backlog that I cleared alone, I could and did leave those edit windows open overnight without worrying, so edit conflict is a good thing. :-) Thanks again. KrakatoaKatie 14:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


First off, why did you delete this without prior discussion?

Secondly, in what way was the image being used that would "replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media"?

It would have been nice if this could have been worked out before-hand.

Thanks. --G2bambino (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was deleted because it was posted at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 April 4/Images and was posted with the copyvio tag which says in part Unless the copyright status of media is clarified, it will be deleted one week after the time of its listing. You discussed it on the images talk page with MC Rufus. There was nothing else to say. I gave you a courtesy note on Diffyour talk page as well. If you would like to dispute the deletion you may want to look to Wikipedia:Deletion review. If I can be of anymore help let me know. Jeepday (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

pic copyright

Yeh it should be deleted. But i don't know how to delete it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Take a look at this! I wondered if this day would ever come. You're my hero - thanks so, so much for pitching in! - KrakatoaKatie 17:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great Job! Jeepday (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A list indeed

Yes; User:CorenSearchBot/exclude. The page uses regular expressions to match URLs; give me a holler if you don't feel confortable tweaking it yourself. — Coren (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Especially for you...

The Dessert of Merit
Awarded to Jeepday for steadfast work on the backlog at Wikipedia:Copyright problems - you're a great admin and a shining example to Wikipedians everywhere! KrakatoaKatie 04:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slow down there, partner. Did you read my explanation on the talk page? That page was not a copyvio. The linked page was the copyvio of the Wikipedia article. There's absolutely no need to delete Karo's wiki entry. Please restore it with all revisions intact. If anything beyond my original explanation is needed, the solution is to hold further discussions, but the page does not need to be deleted. This is very much NOT a copyvio on Wikipedia's part, but instead is something the Wikimedia Foundation needs to be made aware of since they're the victims. Gromlakh (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further proof that Karo's official site ripped off his wiki entry: take a look at the source of this page, the one that we are alleged to have violated the copyright on. Example text, copied from the page's source code:

<h3>Karo Parisyan "The Heat"</h3> born August 28, 1982 in <a title="Yerevan" href="">Yerevan</a>, <a title="Armenia" href="">Armenia</a> is an Armenian-American mixed martial arts fighter.

No, seriously, they actually had the nuts to INCLUDE OUR WIKILINKS on the page. Gromlakh (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for the talk page spam, but after noticing that you said you'd read my explanation and deleted anyway I took things to ANI as well. Your comments would be appreciated. Gromlakh (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Restored for review, When I did a second look I found earlier versions that did not look like the potential copyvio source. Not sure how I missed them. Lets continue the conversation on the article talk page. Jeepday (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a problem. Thanks for taking a second look at it. Gromlakh (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright info

I put up those tags because the editor was lifting text from that site and pasting it into lots of articles. S/He was doing it so fast and not responding to my requests at their talk page that I just put that tag up at all the sites they edited. Run the text of the articles through and when you check the results be sure to click on "show omitted results". I just did and came back with a lot of copied text. NJGW (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have the source you can delete the copyvio your self, jsut include the source site in the edit summary, as I did in this edit. Jeepday (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hey wats up —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

399 to go

Hi, Jeepday. Sorry for late reply. Thanks for your information. I'm quite busy in real life nowadays, but i'll try to take a look at the articles that i can contribute. It's a really good work. Best wishes. E104421 (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You deleted my photo of Paul Stanley's artwork & slandered me.

Your comment listed somewhere was that it was a "Blatant copyright violation: source" In fact, I met him and talked with him back in September 2007. I asked him if it was OK for me to take pictures of his artwork. He said I could. So, I took several pictures of his artwork while he watched me. I also told him I would be adding the photos to my website. He did not object. The photo you deleted was one of those photos. If Wikipedia does not want to use the photo, that is fine. But, save your slanderous comments for things you have confirmed.

You can find all of the pictures I took of him (including the one you falsely said I took from his website & and photo of us together) while he was at my TV station on my website at:

Phil Konstantin

Thank you for pointing out that I was mistaken about the source of the image. I have restored the image to Wikipedia Image:PaulStanleyArtByPhilKonstantin.JPG and the article Paul Stanley. Because the image is a picture of copyrighted work (Derivative work) you will need to make a fair use claim if you would like the image to remain on Wikipedia. No slander was made or intended, "Blatant copyright infringement" is a term used when there appears to be no question about the source of the image, in this case the image had been tagged as a copyvio for more then seven days (Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 March 30/Images) with no clarification (I did not restore the tagged page version). When there is an clarified question of copyright status the image is removed.
P.S. Please sign your posts on Wikipedia with four tildes ~~~~ Jeepday

(talk) 00:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have added lots of original photos of people listed in Wikipedia. To make sure no one thought I was using copyrighted material, I used to also add a link to the website where I had posted the original photos. Cruftbane decided to delete those links. Someone else said I was promoting myself. So I no longer do that.

Oh well...

Phil Konstantin Phil Konstantin (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cruftbane's comments.... Phil Konstantin

Philkon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) uploads photographs, adds them to articles with a namecheck. We also have a lot of links to Special:Linksearch/, which is Phil Konstantin's website on KUSI, mostly added by (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), which is almost certainly the same individual since the edits are al to add these links or to Konstantin's image captions, see these three sequential diffs: [189], [190], [191]. And Philkon also edits KUSI (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) This does not look good. Cruftbane 19:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

   * I just removed links and name checks from over 60 articles, I hope I did right. Cruftbane 20:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Meta XWiki - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • • • Alexa • •

Spamlink template so the bots can pick this up. Cross-posted to WT:WPSPAM# MER-C 14:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)