User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2011/April

Replaceable fair use File:Opel OHV engine v1.0.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Opel OHV engine v1.0.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What freely licensed media of the same subject?   — Jeff G.  ツ 01:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe one could be created. --Damiens.rf 15:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The only freely licensed media of an Opel OHV Engine I could find is File:Rekord1700smotor.jpg per Google Images, but that is a photo of an old engine which may be an OHV (article Opel OHV engine doesn't metion Rekford), not a line drawing of a new engine.   — Jeff G.  ツ 19:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

First: why does the article need a line drawing specifically, rather than a photograph? No technical details shown in this particular drawing are specifically discussed in the article. Second: it's not a matter of whether free images exist, but a matter of whether they could be created. Anybody with the necessary skills in technical drawing and enough technical understanding of this type of motor could make a new drawing, from existing photographs and observation of real-world machines (of which some specimens evidently still exist). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"Personal attacks"

I didn't "attack" anyone. I simply vented my frustration at the other user hounding me on my talk page and talking to me like I'm stupid. You can see it on my page. 208.65.20.140 (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Explaining to you is neither harassment nor hounding. Dan56 is right.   — Jeff G.  ツ 02:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

He wasn't right to label what I did as unconstructive, I was only helping. And he did seem to go after me for no apparent reason. He harassed me like I was ruining the article or something, which clearly I was not. 208.65.20.140 (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I also didn't attack him. 208.65.20.140 (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You called what he was doing "harassing". What you were doing was removing cited information and replacing it with information cited in the wrong place, both of which reduced the quality of the article.   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I believe adding Autius to being born 1996, Feburary 5th was a constructive edit, as the Black Metal Musician was born then —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.152.216 (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Pingu.dbl96

Please stop propsing the 2 articles Chloris truncata and Calostemma purpureum for deletion. I have now referenced them, i think you should look at the articles again before continuing your foolish process of trying to remove perfectly valuable information from the hands of the world.

Thankyou

Pingu.dbl96 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pingu.dbl96 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Those alleged references are insufficiently precise to verify - we need verifiable reliable sources. See also {{cite book}}.   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the second PROD tag from Calostemma purpureum. WP:PROD states If any person objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{proposed deletion}} tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed.. The first PROD (along with this warning — what "vandalism"?) was also inappropriate in my opinion — species are inherently notable, and "insufficient references" not a valid reason for deletion. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sincerely disappointed in your actions in restoring a validly removed PROD tag -- as an experienced editor, you should know better. I have also noted, over time, your propensity to "go for the throat" when warning other editors, as you did in the situation referenced above (not to mention the issue of templating established editors). The hyper-reactionism is, perhaps, a sign that it is time for you to step back and consider taking a break. Taroaldo (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had PRODded that article twice. However, Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy and I thought I was adding a level four warning for adding unsourced or insufficiently sourced information with this edit, after three previous warnings for adding unsourced or insufficiently sourced information.   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Not too many newbie editors find WT:ITN on their first edit, and their subsequent edits there added nothing to any of the discussions they commented on. I'll defer to you at the Iran article if you think that User:TerenceBoshy isn't a troll but to me it's fairly obvious. Best, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll concede it looks trollish. Note, I didn't actually welcome the user, just notified him of the allegation as he was prima facie confused.   — Jeff G.  ツ 01:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Just wanted to make clear in case my reversion of the edit was seen the wrong way. Happy editing, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverts on my talk page

Hi, I'm guessing you thought you reverted those edits on my talk page because you thought they were vandalism? Or am I missing something here? Bped1985 (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I went a bit too far, Gogo fixed it before I could.   — Jeff G.  ツ 02:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha, no worries. I'm an RCP'er so I know the feeling of reverting something I shouldn't have all too well. Cheers Bped1985 (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi,

You had helped me out with an RCP thing about a week ago, so I figured I would shoot another question your way. There is this page Conference of the Mennonite Brethren Churches in India, that an IP made 34 edits to in a matter of minutes. And he took out some info and added some other info. The link below is the difference between his last edit and when he first started editing the article. It seems fishy to me, I'd like to know what you think?

Thanks Bped1985 (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It appears you are writing of this link showing the net changes by 199.8.238.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to Conference of the Mennonite Brethren Churches in India. The net information added appears to comprise of a one-paragraph section and a two-point timeline, plus two of the three references. These seem to be improvements; however, the IP Address is registered to Mennonite Goshen College, so I have handed it a COI notice.   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)