User talk:Jeff5102

Welcome!

Hello Jeff5102, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, some of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a great page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  JoshuaZ 14:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC) p.s. I completely agree in your attidude towards Adnan Oktar, but the Wikipedia rules and guidelines still need to be followed. JoshuaZ 14:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, I'd invite you to take your concerns to the talk page. Contemporary Islam is an academic scholarly journal published by Springer Netherlands, and the author, Goran Larsson, is a recognised expert in sociology. You've also removed reliably sourced content from an Asia Times article. As the reliable sources talk about the topic in relation to anti-Islam sentiment, the categories are also warranted - and this has been discusses extensively on talk, which is where I think we should take this dispute. ITAQALLAH 00:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Jeff, I've sent you the academic paper in question. Thanks, ITAQALLAH 19:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked that IP but am allowing account creation if used productively.

You should also note that you broke 3RR on that page; because you were not reverting blatant vandalism, you are not exempt from the rule. And because you are not a new user, a 3RR warning is not required. I came very close to blocking you as well, but decided to hold off and see if progress can be made with the discussion. Do not revert the article again today, and don't let disagreements get so out of hand in the future. Seek dispute resolution before edit warring, and remember - there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 13:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I reverted your edits mostly because of objections towards deletion of sourced content in the lead. Also the deletion of stamp issued by Finland was not needed IMO as this was there since long time and a dispute could have been addressed using appropriate tags on that sentence. I will try to reply ASAP in the talk page about your individual concerns.

As a whole , I have been trying to create a balance in the article - on one hand, we have very poor quality edits from fans like Islam4ever who not only bring bias, but also destroys the quality. On the other hand, some other editors make the article into a coatrack, whereby 75% of the article is devoted to criticism many of them irrelevant. Your positive contributions are appreciated. Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 10:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A MedCab case has been opened here, regarding Anthony Flew. You have been named as a participant. Please visit the case page and indicate whether or not you will participate. Thank you. [roux » x] 23:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I tried to add a new introduction to the Anthony Flew article. Within hours it had been reverted by User:Khamosh, who accused me of being paid to vandalise Wikipedia (I wish).

Could you try talking to him. (If only because because two users are required to do a Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users.)

Thanks,

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 01:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Umbro sponsorships, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umbro sponsorships. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Mosmof (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Adidas sponsorships, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adidas sponsorships. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Mosmof (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article you created, Adidas_sponsorships is about to be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adidas_sponsorships.

The faster your respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved. This is because deletion debates only stay open for a few days, and the first comments are usually the most important.

There are several tools and other editors who can help you keep the page from being deleted forever:

1. You can list the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. If you need help listing your page, add a comment on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
2. You can request a mentor to help explain to you all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted, here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond on the deletion page.
   
3. When try to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you.
   Here is a list of your own acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
   Acronyms in deletion debates are sometimes incorrectly used, or ignore rules or exceptions.
4. You can merge the article into a larger article.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 03:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have started another poll on the Anthony Flew article, at Talk:Antony Flew#Poll on inclusion versus removal of Flew's criticism of Richard Dawkins.

Regards,

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 16:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the islam template I placed below this page ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! That was what exactlty I wanted it to be. Did'nt notice the template last time.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff5102. Regarding your revert of a few of my edits on Faith Freedom International, I don't believe it's a requirement that every change be explained on the talk page so long as the edit summary is sufficient. Even so, a lot of the changes I made, such as removing material sourced to unreliable references (i.e. WND, FPM) or material that relies too heavily on primary sources, were raised by myself on several occasions on the talk page over the past year or two. If there are any specific edits you disagree with I'd like to hear your feedback. Regards, ITAQALLAH 21:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff5102. Does wiki is controlled by Jew? I am seeing lots of such trend. If asked then I will provide such instances.

Would you mind having a look at the problem of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party's Nazi history and swastika flag being systematically deleted/vandalized? This removes an important aspect of neutrality from the article. References from many reliable sources are provided. See its talk page. The edits are being done by users with IP addresses from very similar domains. Thanks, Histopher Critchens (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Kazan Operation - Arsk Uprising - Pitchfork Uprising (not sure for Tambov rebellion) are generally considered to be a Eastern front, or "War in the Volga basin". Please, remove them from the corresponding template --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 14:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a page dedicated to our serial sockpuppet friend at Ahmed Deedat, where I (or others) can quickly and easily report him/her? His/her latest incarnation is User:Reachaveg. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thanks for your recent edits, but please do not add any more images to Dynasty minor characters. Every entry previously had an image but the list was completely stripped as it violated fair use rules as an "image gallery." We managed to keep a small amount of images (I believe the argument was for original cast members, images of notable characters not featured anywhere else on Wikipedia) but if there are too many in this list it will be stripped again. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 16:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The parts removed have been found to be highly questionable and based on non-notable sources, so they were removed. I think you and I would probably find a lot to agree about off-wiki on this gentleman's work and philosophy, but on-wiki, the rules we have are there for a reason and not defaming living subjects (whether we like them or not) is pretty much iron-clad policy around here. Orderinchaos 22:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources were among others the scientific monthly New Scientist, the Spanish newspaper El Periodico, and Turkish nationwide television news channel NTV (Turkey). Calling them "highly questionable and [..] non-notable sources" is hilarious.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, I have taken the liberty of reverting the article back to the version of Ari, which is the only one that made sense. Feel free to remove and edit the things you did in your last 4 edits into that version. The version you edited into was the result of a heavily pov and vandalist attempt over the past afternoon by two editors (possibly socks). They removed chunks of material which was reliably sourced replacing it with chunks on biblical debates(??). Completely messed up the article. Just wanted to inform you. Inthedarkness (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suspicion the sockpuppet from Zakir Naik is back. --Ari (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, are you able to revert Zakir Naik to the last good version? Spine.Cleaver is insisting on edit warring in order to get non-consensus edits in.Thanks. --Ari (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am unsure why you have accused me as sock-puppetry. Could you please explain what I have done wrong? I am unsure who 'Awliya' is, aside from being reported on the history and discussion pages of Zakir Naik. I apologize for any inconvenience.

The Well Wisher (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Awliya. You just happen to start a new account for the sole purpose of reverting back to Awliya's edits. You also just happen to sign comments in the same way with an attempted line break as well as both contacting random editors. --Ari (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who I 'randomly' contacted. What are you talking about!?! --The Well Wisher (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in times of an edit war, one user is banned, and starts to use sock puppets. At this time, a new user pops up, and restores it into a version that looks like the version the sock puppetteer preferred. That was what you did on the Zakir Naik-article, and that causes quite some suspicions on you.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kbonline and Sister Agnes are not Sockpuppets of Awliya, because I am Awliya. Check their IPs you false accuser Jeff! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.108.35.85 (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are nothing but a liar. As they say in North America: F*ck U —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.108.35.85 (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the facts, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Awliya/Archive. Jeff5102 (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind at all. In fact, sometimes i know i made mistakes because ive rushed throough my edits, and i hoped someone else would fix them. usually i have to go back and fix the mistake, like a broken references etc.Дунгане (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're still interested in clearing out self-published sources, you might want to look at www.bible-researcher.com (list of links here). It came up on an article on my watchlist, and appears to be cited in hundreds of, generally minor and poorly patrolled, religious articles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a very long discussion with three editors, two of them quite senior "barnstar" editors, for 24 hours on talk page, please discuss there before you change. You should not make changes to whole sections if they are disputed without discussing them first on the talk page. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did discuss them on the Talkpage. If you wish to ignore that, so be it, but please do not bother me on my talkpage with that.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted the change before you discussed on the talk page. I am answering your comments there. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that you are mistaken. I discussed the new lead last evening, and I reverted the page last morning. Please try to pay attention to the dates, before you start your accusations.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geoff, I see that the discussions around mr. Oktar exploded when I was off-line for only two days. I have only a little bit of time to work in the article, but I'll get back on it as soon as I can. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please make your comments now. I really don't want to go back and forth with many editors for several weeks only to have you revert it all because you weren't in the discussion. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot help it that the discussion-page is flooded with comments the last few days. Please don't hasten the process too much, will you?Jeff5102 (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote you two comments on my talk page --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you kindly. I did not know the convention you mentioned and I accept its logic. Thanks. I just considered it strange that Dr Naik was repeatedly called Zakir (his first name) throughout the entry. I have removed the title throughout. I have no real interest in Naik, and have no position either way on the strengths and weaknesses of his preaching. I just monitor the page because of the strident partisanship that I see almost every day. Naik seems to have passionate fans and equally passionate detractors. As a consequence the entry veers occasionally (actually, rather often) between uncritical praise and uncritical condemnation. I'm keen to see it remain neutral. This has not proven easy. Thanks again.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi, can I solicit your opinion here? (RE:[1]). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff. I just opened up a discussion about the article on the BLP notice board. BigJim707 (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have previously edited Regilio Tuur and would like to make you aware that I'm seeking consensus on the article on the talk page.--Mrmatiko (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in looking back at the "Peoples Movement Assembly" article to provide feedback, as it now provides links to other Wikipedia articles and the tone has been changed? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Septima2011 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff5102! Thank you for the heads up, please let us know if the logo is now viewable on the Pahrump, Nevada page.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OfficialTownofPahrump (talk • contribs) 16:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the page number for this citation. Thank you. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

done!Jeff5102 (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you cited a large range of page numbers? Is there a sentence in particular that supports the proposition it is being cited for? 24.217.97.248 (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never-mind. I've taken care of the problem. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jeff5102, I'll be very grateful for a neutral set of eyes to look at the Farhat Hashmi article, its recent edits and its talk page. I think that in places this articles strays away from the subject, a person (Farhat Hashmi), and wanders into only tangentially related wider discussions about Wahhabism, extremism, veiled women, etc. Those are important topics, of course, but in my view the inclusion of information on loosely related topics impacts negatively on the proportionality / balance / focus of ths article. I don't mean its neutrality. That seems ok. I mean its emphasis. Despite the comment of one editor, thing has nothing to do with any "personal likes/dislikes". I am merely trying to keep the article tight, focused and sticking only to the person it is about. Thanks.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jeff5102, can you please look at the latest edits on the article Joel Hayward by a user called 158.234.251.71. I think he's adding malicious content that might be defamatory. I've reverted his edits but he reverts them back. Can you please look at his talk page and history. He seems to have been a problem editor from the beginning. What can we do? Thank you.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More POV-pushing, if you're interested in helping out again. — kwami (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, thank you for joining in the effort to bring balance to the Maafa 21 Article. Please check out its Talk page to see the ongoing discussions and feel free to join in. God bless! -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you'll be back soon. :) -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even though secondary sources would be better, I think you did the right thing in expanding that section so we have an idea what actually went on! Thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! I still got some other ideas for the article, but I'll write them down later on the discussion page.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. Re: the edit to Haddad's comments - can you suggest another way of phrasing it? "Extreme in their anti-Islam views" seems like a reasonable paraphrase of "extreme in their views...basically it's everyone known for damning Islam." If we omit the latter part it is unclear and may convey the impression that she believes the speakers to be very Islamist or something. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then the best thing to do is to expand the quote. I know you like small quotes, but in the way you put it, I think we have no other option. I still think that we should include some context on Hadad's emplyer. It would put the remark somewhat more in context. And for the speakers: the old site presents them here. Maybe it is useful.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm totally find expanding the quote! Do you want to do that or shall I? As for Haddad's employer, I'm not opposed in theory, but there are a couple of issues - 1, the potential of synth (since we need to get it from a source that isn't about the summit, and if we're going to do that, there's a lot of other information we could also pull in about her that doesn't aim to discredit her) and 2, the particular phrasing used gave the impression of Haddad as a representative of an advocacy organization that simply happened to be based at Georgetown, when she's a professor there (and also the author and/or editor of several books on the subject published through academic presses), ie. an expert commentator. Re the list of speakers - I think we used to include it but someone else removed it, and I don't remember what their reason was so I don't want to restore it myself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We also have this link [2]: it explains the negative stance on CAIR by Investors Weekly. Maybe it's useful.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's relevant; it's a report of an extremely local dispute in which one party to the dispute happened to mention the summit. (Who is Jeff Katz that we care what he had to say?) This is not really coverage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also! As I mentioned in my edit summary, you and the anonymous IP disagree on whether it is better to include the whole quote from Haddad or to paraphrase its contents. I'm fine with either, so why don't you have that discussion on the talk page? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jeff, I raised a query at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Turning Point in National History. Not sure you have it on your Watchlist so I thought I should leave you a note here. Cheers, Stalwart111 01:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[3]

Apologies for my overhasty misreading of this change. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you include a photo of Mr. Swami in the article?KartikGomala (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem? Behemoth (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My problems? 1. The WP:SPS-rule. 2. You calling me a dumbass].Jeff5102 (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping! And I suspect that there's more that could be added. -- Hoary (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "notability" tag added by Waynejayes was obviously wrong (he clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a national legislature), but perhaps they didn't understand what "MP" means. In this international encyclopedia it's worth spelling things out in a bit more detail, for readers and other editors.

Please also remember that if you create an article for someone using their middle name it's important to add a link from the "firstname lastname" version of their name: I've added a hatnote to Charles Combe; sometimes it's an entry in a disambiguation page that's needed. Thanks. PamD 22:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PamD, thanks for the advice! I'll use it when I'll continue to edit the article, which will be soon. Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection won't help the article as such. The disruptive editors that you mentioned are registered editors. I won't speculate on whether they are sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User:Jeff5102/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it contains a gallery in the userspace which consists chiefly of fair use or non-free images. For legal reasons, we cannot allow non-free and copyrighted images to be used on user pages, and user pages containing galleries of such images may be eligible for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Thanks. The images are removed so I think It can stay. Next time, please contact me before taking such a hastily action. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop redirecting the CC articles.. First it doesn't make sense to redirect them to the Politburo articles (since they also elect the Secretariat, Orgburo, the department heads, auditing commission), and secondly, me another are planning to create them. Just wait. --TIAYN (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right. My idea was that my actions prevented redlinks, which is a noble cause. But I'll stop with that. However, a "please" would be nice, next time. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Tom that you asked to intervene seems very knowledgeable and I have asked him perhaps to combine the two points of view and edit warring articles (i.e current and my version which Jeff5102 and JudeccaXIII keeps deleting/reverting) into one, so all aspects are clearly available to the Wikipedia reader. I am not that knowledgeable when it comes to adding sources (or even if this note should be put here for you) but as I said in the edit summary all the material is sourced via Google from reputable books/sources and not chat rooms etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhakcm (talk • contribs) 04:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jeff5102, I hope you are well. Another editor (RookTaker) and I are feeling a bit frustrated that our efforts to keep the iERA article neutral, balanced and reliable are being thwarted by an anonymous editor who changes his editor name (sometimes to mimic ours) and seems to want to whitewash the article. I don't have an view as to whether iERA is good or bad, but it is a controversial entity. That's not just my opinion. Neutral and reliable sources show that. Hiding the controversial nature of this entity will therefore prevent an accurate account being presented. I'm not out to paint the iERA as despicable. I truly don't have an axe to grind. I don't believe that RookTaker has either. Can you please take a look at the article and the edit history and see what you think? Thanks and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jeff5102. What a great job you do! Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you have a good eye... On that note, please feel free to participate in creating the missing articles in the Template:Communist Party of the Soviet Union; I for one use Google Translate to transliterate the lists I find on this site, while Ymblater, whose working on the 27th Central Committee, is a Russian.. The good thing is that I'm created articles for all the Politbuors and the Secretariats, and right now we're only missing the Orgbuors and several Central Committees - but of course there is more to do then meets the eye; we don't have similar articles on the Central Control Commission and the Central Auditing Commission. Anyhow, again, thanks with regards to finding out who Ivan Smilga is! :) --TIAYN (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jeff5102, I hope life is good. I've nominated the article on Umar Vadillo for deletion. It seems to be one of those poorly sourced pages created by a fan or by someone connected by Vadillo himself. I'd be grateful if you would take a look at the page and share your views at this article's entry on the Articles for Deletion page. Thanks and best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The papal schism! -Darouet (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Roman line articles (example: Pope Boniface IX) are under Pope & the Avignon/Pisan guys (example: Antipope Benedict XIII & Antipope Alexander V) are under Antipope? I shall accept your version of the infoboxes & succession boxes (i.e Roman/Avignon/Pisan claiments), as that is a fair compromise :) GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, but there is one thing. This "In 1930 his predecessor Isaak Zelensky tried to depose him, but this attempt failed" should at least be referenced. BUt other than that great! To many Soviet CC member articles are missing. Now theres one less red link at the Central Committee elected by the 16th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) article :) --TIAYN (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Create more seasons in KNVB Cup, there is a lack of information, if you edit in English more people will read and understand, thank you.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you improve also KNVB Cup, the "red" seasons, in English wikipedia ? Thanks.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should have received an email containing a link to a Google form for Newspaperarchive.com access - could you please either complete that form or email me if you did not receive it? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jeff5102. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?

  If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.

  All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian

Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.

Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).

We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arshad Ali (politician) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arshad Ali (politician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume that you are familiar with Arshad Ali's career, but the article is a bit of a tangle. could you make time to swing by and help straighten it out? Thanks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jeff5102, I hope you are fine. Can you please have a look at this page: Ismail ibn Musa Menk. One editor clearly wants to make a long inappropriate religious justification for Mufti Menk's reported homophobia. I have nothing for or against Menk. I just hate to see a neutral Wikipedia page get misused as a forum and I don't want to violate the three-revert rule. Thanks and best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dubrovnik Annals has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dubrovnik Annals is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dubrovnik Annals until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad, but I understand your point. Naturally, I'll vote for keep, but when consensus will swing to delete: so be it. All the best and a happy new year,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jeff5102. I hope you are fine. Sorry to ask, but can you please look at recent edits on this page - Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi - and see what you think of the sources used. One editor wants to use a blog and youtube, and deletes a NYT article and a scholarly book instead. Thanks and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC) Dear GorgeCustersSabre, thanks. I'll take a look at it as soon as I can. Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asked to have it restored here: User:Mark Schierbecker/Sargon of Akkad (YouTube). I'll try to improve it and get it back up soon. Feel free to contribute if you want. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jeff5102, I hope you are fine. I'll be very grateful if you will please look at the Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri page, and its talk page. A fan of Qadri can't seem to understand the advice given to him on his talk page by me and other editors. Thanks and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Council of Perpignan. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from http://stellenboschwriters.com/spiesl.html, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was OK when the text was referenced by the source and altered. O well, so far for destubbifying Africa.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Perpignan, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had a looked at both the articles and changed the class from stub to start (Suonii180 (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, Jeff5102. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jeff5102. I hope you are fine. I am respectfully hoping you will help me to keep the Nurjan Mirahmadi page neutral, accurate and referenced. One editor continuously and dogmatically adds hyperbolic, fan-style and unreferenced material, and even keeps changing the page name itself to include Mawlana, sheikh, etc. I don't want to be accused of edit warring. My thanks and regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George Custer's Sabre , I tried, and our WP:SPA is reverting again and again. I believe it is time to take action against him. Will you do it? Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on the page is referenced on nurmuhammad.com , feel free to check it out.staffsmcav Also in the islamic religion we don't have the concept of Honorific titles. George may be following a different creed of Islam (perhaps salafi), but in tariqa islam we don't have this concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staffsmcav (talk • contribs) 13:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an AfD out of it. The problems of the article can be adressed over there.Jeff5102 (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Staffsmcav, you have made personal attacks on me that are pointless, untrue and unkind. My "creed" is unimportant and irrelevant in terms of the articles I edit or how I edit them. Don't make such personal attacks again. By the way, for your information, I am not Salafi. Not that it would matter if I was so long as my editing was responsible. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- Just by going through this talk page, you can clearly see both you and George have some personal issues with various Muslim personalities. Deleting the page is unjustifiable. Your demand for references was already addressed in early spring 2016. (talk)

Staffsmcav, in spite of what George Custer's Sabre just wrote, you keep on making untrue personal attacks. All I can say is: just take a look at the list of my contributions, and see if I am focused too much on "Muslim personalities." Oh, and before I forget: thank you for bringing up the Jeffgoin-website. I had no idea it was mine.Jeff5102 (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff and Gorge, I apologize for incorrectly ascribed jeff-goin's site to you jeff. Why don't you guys go ahead and change the Shaykh's page to the way you want it, and cancel the AfD. Thanks!

Hello. Thanks for the apologies. That said, I will not touch the page of Nurjan Mirahmadi for the next week. That means I will not hinder you in improving the article, thus making it good enough to survive the AfD-discussion. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot discuss this on the talk page, I will go to the edit warring notice board. Grayfell (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to discuss it on the talk-page. But I would have appreciated it if you would have kept the texts in place until consensus was reached. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how WP:BRD works. You added contentious material, I removed it and responded to your talk post, and you kept restoring it without further comment. That's the definition of edit warring. Grayfell (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then you really don't get the WP:DONTREVERT-rule: "Do not revert a large edit because much of it is bad and you do not have time to rewrite the whole thing. Instead, find even a little bit of the edit that is not objectionable and undo the rest." Like I said: it was all sourced with good sources. To call a direct quote of The Times "contentious" is laughable at best.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a rule, it's an essay. You can laugh all you want, but it's still contentious to cherry pick on quote without providing any context or follow-up, and the place to discuss this specifics of the edit is the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And your rule was no rule either; it was an explanatory supplement. It appears to me that you are extremely critical on things you do not like (like Heat Street being probably unreliable when they publish something in favor of Sargon) but that critical if you can use it if it makes SoA look bad (when you use Heat Street as a reference without an "unreliable source?"-tag). You make it hard for me to assume your good faith.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was an explanatory supplement to established policies. I didn't call it a rule, so is that an issue? I don't feel that Heat Street is particularly reliable, but I did not remove it from the article, that was a different editor. I did, however, change one link to the updated version of the same story from a day later. The second article described the content from the first as speculation, which at a bare minimum should be explained and attributed. How was that inappropriate? Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So if it is not a rule, why should I care how WP:BRD works? But let's continue on the talk-page of the article. Otherwise we need to divert our attention to separate pages, which is too time-consuming.Jeff5102 (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jeff5102. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Newspapers.com The Wikipedia Library.
Message added 04:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff5102, I'm new to editing Wikipedia and I have a question about an edit you made to the article "Cyriak" in the March of this year. I noticed that you deleted a substantial portion of the article that referenced only YouTube videos or Cyriak's own personal website. Is it standard practice on Wikipedia to disregard YouTube videos and sources closely connected to a biographical subject as unreliable? If so, could you link me to a page that explains Wikipedia's policies in this regard? If it isn't standard procedure, why did you decide to delete the material in this particular case?

Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability (people): a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. YouTube videos or Cyriak's own personal website do not fall in this category.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jeff5102. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice improvements in categories. Ive added a few more pictures and included one in an article. Thanks again Victuallers (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I checked the articles of the other anti-popes during the 1378-1429 period. None of them have the navbox, that you've recently restored at Antipope Clement VII. I see no need to single out one. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then look further. I've added navboxes at the anti-popes during the reign of Pope Alexander III. That I did not have time yet to add them in other articles is no argument to delete them. But maybe it is an idea to ask the opinion of User:JoeHebda on this; he is involved in anti-popes too. If he believes that those boxes are a good or bad idea, then we have something of a consensus. Do you think that is a good idea? Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Jeff5102 and GoodDay - the anti-pope articles are a small portion of the many thousands of articles for WP Catholicism that I've touched over the years. I am by no means an expert on this subject. I do concur (always wanted to use that word) that I'm in favor of any addition that enhances & improves Wikipedia articles. Even if this navbox shows on only a few (but not all) anti-pope articles I think it's visual value is good to clarify the timeline of papal succession which can be confusing to the average WP reader. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they're going to be added? it should be to all anti-pope bio articles. Highly recommend that the word 'Disputed', not be added to the navboxes of the popes however. The Catholic Church counts the Roman line as popes & the Avignon & Pisan lines as anti-popes. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander III was a pope, so you wouldn't add such a box there. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

During the reign of Alexander III, there happened to be a line of four rivaling popes, supported by Frederick Barbarossa. These popes resided in Rome, while Alexander found refuge in France. I do believe the succession-boxes I added for those popes clarifies a lot. That said, I do not see a problem with the word “Disputed’. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopaedia, and therefore it should not blindly follow the judgment of the official Catholic Church. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC) Jeff5102 (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with disputed, is that there's no longer a dispute. Who were popes & who were anti-popes has been clarified. Now (for example) if we had Wikipedia during 1378 to 1417? then disputed would've been used. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back then it indeed was disputed. The French king supported one pope, the German emperor supported another. This is a classical example that history is written by the victors. But since the reigns of the antipopes were disputed, I do not see any reason why that should not be mentioned.Jeff5102 (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you add these navboxes (with Disputed Pope in title) to all the anti-pope bio articles, that would be alright. But, I'd oppose adding 'Disputed' to the navboxes of the popes. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the additions you made to this article attributed the gatherings to Organization of Iranian American Communities. The article used as a reference doesn't say that....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, maybe you are a native English speaker, so ...William, could you please tell me what the sentence "The rally, organized by the Organization of Iranian American Communities, highlighted human rights abuses and called for democratic change in Iran." means according to you?Jeff5102 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake I rectified but tell me where in this- “For liberty in Iran and democracy in Iran we are here to support the protests in Iran that are ongoing,” said Majid Sadeghpour, a Falls Church, Virginia, pharmacist who also serves as political director of the Organization of Iranian American Communities in the United States. That is says the group organized the event. Garbage with a reference aka references for something in an article that says no such thing. I am seeing way too much of this shit[4][5][6] around wikipedia of late....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...William, it is here: "The Organization of Iranian American Communities holds a demonstration across from the White House in solidarity with protesters in Iran, Washington, Jan. 6, 2018," but I assume that would be dismissed for being "not meeting WP:RS." Idem for The Organization Of Iranian American Communities (OIAC) Rally In Support Of Iran's Uprising. Nor do I believe you would take the word of the OIAC itself for it (see [7]). Moreover, I assume that bringing all those references together would mean I could be blamed of WP:OVERCITE. But hey, thank you for calling my efforts to make this encyclopedia better "garbage" and "shit." That really makes it worth it for me.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is garbage and shit when you put something in an article and reference it with something that says so such thing....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you are such a genius, pick up my findings and edit it in a way that it fits your standards. Frankly, I expected better language from a wikipedian who is 15 years my senior.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake and admitted it above. You put bullshit/manure/excrement/tahe* in an article with a reference that didn't say it and not admit you were wrong. The constant presence of referenced bullshit in articles is a big problem around wikipedia and its done both by acts of stupidity[8] or by editors with an agenda or sometimes in good faith but I find that the least often cause and can give 20 good examples of why I think that....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not as bright as you are. I said the organization organized a gathering, there are plenty sources that show that is indeed the case, and now you are equating that to a four-year-old-case of slander. I honestly do not see why I should admit I am wrong because I wrote something that was truthful. And linking that with stupidity and/or bad faith editing, without knowing me at all, is beyond me. So again, pick up my findings and edit the article in a way that it fits your standards. Then we can leave this quarrel behind and continue improving wikipedia.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion on the article The Domestic Crusaders but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Thank you. ansh666 21:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but in my house, housekeeping does not stop for AfDs. All the best,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Sometimes people forget entirely, so I always give a reminder if I see it. Thanks, ansh666 21:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Jeff5102 (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine with me if you change it. I wonder how that happened. I wonder if it's one of those cases where they changed their name in order to inherit from a relation? Deb (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There reason it wasn’t there is no one has gone through the lynching victims and added it to all of them. (It did not exist when most of the articles were written.) If you would like to help further, see Template:Lynching in the United States. deisenbe (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Es ist mein Opa ! Du steichst hier Eintragung. Die Behauptung er ist ein Verräter ist erstunken und erlogen ! Roman Kunze (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Das ist die Seite meines Opas. Bei der nächsten Änderung zeige ich dich an ! Roman Kunze (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff5102! You created a thread called Secondary sources on episode lists at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After a determination is made about Mira Gonzalez and if the article stays, I have no objection about trimming the article along the lines as you suggest. My concern was that the removal of valid sources might sway contributors who weigh in on the article's survival, so that in the meantime, while the article is being reviewed in the AfD, that the sources stay in.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was a dead link I deleted (see also here:[9]). Dead links are not considered valid sources (at least not by me, that is). If you think that it is all right to write that Ms Gonzalez writes in a "extremely humorous and warm manner," because a dead link says so, and if you think it is all right to simply revert my attempt to keep the article free from unsourced puffery, then I'll leave further editing of the article concerning this extremely humorous and warm person to you.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Jeff5102, please stop adding citations to MEMRI. They are not a WP:RS or even remotely close and should not be used to cite information presented in WP’s voice, especially contentious information. Unless you can make an argument for them passing WP:VERIFY than stop using them. When you make a revert you are responsible for the content of that revery, please review WP:CHALLENGE. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I have to take a break from Wikipedia for the next week or so. Despite our disagreement on this particular issue, I want to make it clear that I respect and admire the scope of your contributions and your personal civility immensely. I'm posting these here on your talk page as ANI isn't the place for lengthy content disputes, discussions about the interpretation of policy, and arguments about the reliability of sources, all of which this case largely hinges upon.

Regardless of whether or not you or I agree with HEJ's removal of content, I believe there are most certainly good-faith BLP objections being raised against MEMRI. In accordance with WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, I urge that you take it to RS/N and open up a request for comment so that a consensus can be built, before continuing the ANI discussion. In that way can you may definitively determine whether or not HEJ is editing against the consensus - if he continues doing so, only then is ANI the right place to file a report.

I was worried by what I saw as your mischaracterization of the 2009 RS/N discussion of Memri [10], as it suggested a bit of a misunderstanding about how consensus works. Consensus is not a vote, and but rather based on the larger community's acceptance of the reasonings presented - WP:PNSD. "Support" or "Oppose" templates are shorthand for the arguments presented, and nothing more - in that discussion, while there are several comments with "Oppose" marked, it should also be clear that the larger arguments were left unresolved without any consensus. (see here for more).

Lastly, and mostly unimportantly, regarding [11] I'm very sure that HEJ is not "counting them as rules that apply to the situation" - the opposite in fact - he is saying they are rules that do not apply to this situation at all. HEJ is responding to these two edits [12], [13] in which CaradhrasAiguo attempted to apply (incorrectly in my opinion), the two guidelines against him. Sincerely, Darthkayak (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Darthkayak:Thanks. I don’t have the time to go in-depth into your comments. However, I would like to state in general that issues like this one made me move to Commons to categorize uncategorized files. It is not just this issue: there too many “your source X is unreliable, as opposed to MY source Y, unless you convince me otherwise”-cases to keep editing enjoyable. That is why you can see a huge drop in my edits, last year, while I switched to more uncontroversial tasks, like categorizing uncategorized files in Commons.

Just see what happens here: CaradhrasAiguo reports HEJ at the edit warring-noticeboard, and gets advised that “if there's a need for admin intervention, WP:ANI is the place to detail the issues instead.” Although other users believe that “ANI can be a time sink,” I take the change and follow the advice. And now there is you, suggesting I should “take it to RS/N and open up a request for comment so that a consensus can be built, before continuing the ANI discussion.”

Thus, I would step into a time sink within a time sink, before getting back to the other time sink. Let me just state that I have other priorities in my life. Don’t take that too personal, though. My experience is, that this case is just an example of a more general problem of Wikipedia. Have fun at your break! :) Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jeff5102. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Per your previous involvement in the same subject matter. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your edit here. Please address the numerous edit summaries for the various changes you reverted over many months. 73.247.181.71 (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Among other issues, you reintroduced:

• content that belongs on the Ali Sina (activist) article.
• content that has been moved to WikiIslam since it is not appropriate on the FFI article.
• sources that have been deprecated/banned on WP:RSPSOURCES.
• misrepresented sources.

Please do not make that edit again. 73.247.181.71 (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a conversation about this issue on the talk page of the article. Snuish2 (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. — Newslinger talk 22:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Faith Freedom International—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Snuish2 (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Eddy Terstall, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jamiebuba (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jean II de Rieux has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No citations to prove who he is; conducted WP:BEFORE and found nothing relevant outside of user created websites.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ThatFungi (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jean II de Rieux is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean II de Rieux until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

ThatFungi (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jeff5102. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Eddy Terstall, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Adidas sponsorships is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Adidas sponsorships until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Joseph2302 (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect List of Umbro sponsorships has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 10 § List of Umbro sponsorships until a consensus is reached. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]