User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Archive7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the seventh talk archive. See the main archive index here.

Don't add to this page (not that you can, actually). For the active talk page for Jeffrey O. Gustafson go here.

Contents

Spoo

Requested cites:

Spears, RA. Slang and Euphemism: A Dictionary of Oaths, Curses, Insults, Sexual Slang and Metaphor, Racial Slurs, Drug Talk, Homosexual Lingo, and Related Matters. Signet Book; Reissue edition (September 1991). ISBN: 0451165543

I'm sure it's in the Oxford slang dictionary, too.

F Aranovich, P Munro. UCLA slang: a dictionary of slang words and expressions used at UCLA. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 8 (1989).

I was struck that the whole article had a sort of subtext that this meaning is why it's so funny to some readers as a veiled reference, but no one mentioned the reason. Jokestress 05:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

kaleb marshall

please do not delete my article titled kaleb marshall. i am not kaleb. although i do know him, i am not creating it for fun or as a joke. kaleb marshall is a professional photographer that has photographed bands such as job for a coboy and hawthorne heights. he is also in the initial stages of creating a documentary on the underground hip-hop and punk scene. this article was meant to display some of his work and accomplishments, it is not a joke. thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaleb1989 (talk • contribs).

Nice username, Kaleb. Second, he/you are not notable enough for an entry. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I noticed you proposed the M.P. Birla Foundation article for deletion just three minutes after I created it. The reason you gave was "nn, possible spam". Please tell me on what basis you decided this foundation is not notable. I can assure you the article is not spam. The Birla family is very significant in India, a bit like Gates in the U.S. (I've never even been to India but I've heard of them.) --Smithfarm 10:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Then remove the prod tag. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


Deleted article

Hello. My article roachinator was deleted within ten minutes of being created. That was the first article I have contributed, and I did so because I felt that there was some lack of knowledge about this type of thing. It does have a personal interest aspect, I admit, but this is a real thing also and there is no article that depicts it. I commend your speed as a moderator, but I'd like just an explanation as to why you decided to delete it. It did not seem to me to be terribly different from other cannabis paraphernalia articles which already exist. You gave a reason (A7 OR), and I'm sorry but I cannot find what that means. --Dramisphere 11:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

A google search showed almost no mention of this specific device, showing (and being proven by "personal interest" above) that this is Original Research. Please read WP:NOR. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, that's a good reason. It is my error that I didn't acknowledge that rule. I will put this information on my own website instead of here.
And thank you. By the way, the article was rather well written - you might want to try your hand at Requested articles or check out the Wikipedia:Article improvement drive. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I may do that. You probably want to delete Image:Roachinator.jpeg as well. Hey, why don't we make a deal: If I complete 1,000 requested articles, I get to have my roachinator article uploaded no questions asked. :)
Heh, if you do that, I'll vote for you for admin! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Mafiag/monobook.css

Ah, I get it now. You can move to CSS pages, but only if you're an administrator. That makes sense. Sorry for the mess I made moving it to the wrong place -- Gurch 14:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh? No, any experienced editor can move any unlocked page. The only reason I moved that was because it was created in the article namespace when it should have been in the user namespace. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Work4world?

Has this page Work4world have any relation to the page Wfw that you have deleted twice?--Blue520 15:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry I just saw you have deleted it, I guess the answer was yes.--Blue520 15:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey, there is something called Freedom of Speech that you probably do not understand. Your arrogance astonish me and l would not be surprised if you do not grasp the concept of Work-For-the-World. You might assume yourself to be an online policeman but other people have got to have a say in a public domain. If you cannot handle authourity correctly, you would eventually have to be removed as an administrator.

What you have considered to be an advertisement is strictly information directed towards the cause and only people who understand would eventually respond. That is the way it works. Read the posted message again and you would notice that it is not selling or intend to sell anything directly through Wikipedia. The posted information did not name any products or prices!!! So back off or get a life.

Ah, thank you. You just made my point: "directed towards the cause and only people who understand would eventually respond." Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. More importantly, per our speedy deletion criteria (A4), you just (even further) verified the legitimacy of my deletion. As for the cries that every single admin gets (CENSORSHIP!), Wikipedia is neither a democracy, nor is it the open internet. It ain't censorship, its policy. My warning stands, good day. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Pulse

In response to your comment [1] regarding pulse and AfD. Actually, the answer is no. I think we should do articles on dead people too. Things such as schools, malls and important civic organizations (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copwatch) are also fine. -- JJay 15:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hahahahahahaha. Cough. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

spoo

Spoo is featured on the Main page today. Quite an awesome article indeed. Congrats! deeptrivia (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeepers, thank you. This is my first featured article on the Main Page and I've been gaurding it like a hawk for eighteen hours now, doing Newpage patrol to kill time, and boy am I tired. It was a year ago this month that I wrote that article, and seing it on the main page is sure swell. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


My pages

If you don't like me puting my pages here then tell me where I can put them, Must I make My own Wiki like http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Main_Page or what!

Reptileus 18:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Anywhere but here, please. This is not your personal webspace. This is an encyclopedia. Get a myspace.com account like everybody else. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me re-Farce What i just siad " How do you get a Wiki Page like http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Main_Page and if not tell me where I can make A page like it for Free

Ah, Wikicities. www.wikicities.com --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Pyogenesis deletion

Respectfully, I would inquire as to why Jeffrey O. Gustafson may have deigned to delete my Pyogenesis page? I spent a considerable amount of time on it. Oakevin (a mere newbie)

'Tis Back. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Following its original deletion (by a different user), I had made changes to show the influence/importance of the band. Now, since you have restored it, I have made another minor change, thus still further endeavouring to improve same. Please review and provide any comments here at your earliest convenience. Though not strictly required by Wiki policy, would you second my nomination to have it removed from "proposed deletion"? Oakevin: o-a 20:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
It is respectfully submitted that the band Pyogenesis is notable because it meets each of the following criteria, among others: (i) the band has gone on international concert tours, and national concert tours in at least one large or medium-sized country, namely, Germany and Austria, among others; (ii) the band has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels – see the Amazon website through the link in the Pyogenesis wiki article; (iii) the band has been featured in the non-trivial published work CMJ New Music Monthly – a reliable and reputable source in the music industry; and (iv) the band had a seminal influence on the development of the hard house music scene and rave culture of the late 90s. Please support my nomination for removal of the page from deletion. Oakevin (newbie step after newbie step): o-a 20:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

spoo on the main page

I think it's absolutely excellent that Spoo is on the main page. Great job getting it up to feature status!! Cheers to you from a Babylon 5 fan. :) --Fang Aili 說嗎? 22:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Doh je! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I love google: How 'bout this: 多謝 !!! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

Hey, I just noticed some edits to your talk and found this. I blocked the user indefinitely as a sockpuppet, probably as a sock of the same user. I don't know the whole history, so I wasn't sure of any further steps to take, as far as ArbCom or what not might be concerned. Cheers, Makemi 04:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hoo, dilly. Yeah, the Mr. Happydeath troll is a fellow named Joseph Allen Wood who, in like, Novemember tried to create a vanity page which I speedied (his username was his real name), plus some AfD'd political stuff. He created a bunch of sockpuppets and when on an attack spree against me and a couple of others. Then, yesterday, I'm on newpage patrol for like, 14 hours, and what pops up? Joseph A. Wood. Good stuff. User:Franklinalexander is most definitely him. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

User undeletion request

Just thought I'd alert you to fact that Helier Robinson has requested undeletion of the page Leibniz-Russell theory of perception which you speedied yesterday. I've put it in his user space. David | Talk 14:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's cool. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for commenting on my recent request for bureaucratship. I deeply appreciate your kind words, and also the comments and feedback that you left me. I hope that I can improve and gain your support in the future. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Why I am loved

Mr. Gustafson: congratulations that you have the admin bit set on your Wikipedia account. I noticed that you spend a lot of time reverting the work of others and very little time talk about what you are doing. I have noticed that your actual article content on Wikipedia has to do with fiction. The reason that I created Elizabeth Morgan is because it is non-fiction and might possibly be about something important. You see, in a Democracy, it is important not only to give each Citizen their turn to speak and their turn to vote, but it is also very important to hold priviledged people (like elected officials, policemen, licensed professionals and pretty females) accountable for what they do because they have more power than the common person. Have you noticed that while you do a lot of taking away of other people's turn by erasing their work on articles or their contributions on Talk pages and noticeboards, few people trying to erase yours words? Do you think it is because they are afraid of your or your admin bit? If you do, then you are a disappointment to me. I personally feel that other people leave your words on the talk pages because they find it in themselves to respsect you as a person, despite the poor example you set. Are you perhaps and oldest child or an only child? You really should try a little introspection and see if you are doing a little too much taking away of other people's turn. -- 71.139.186.72 15:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is an encyclopedia. The tireless work of Jeffrey (and others) in patrolling newpages is hard, thankless work, but completely essential to Wikipedia. If we didn't have editors cutting down the flood of articles that should never be in an encyclopedia, but that people continually create, Wikipedia would soon become completely unusable. Sometimes mistakes are made, but your personal attacks on a hardworking Wikipedia editor are completely unacceptable. In the long run, comments like yours are what drive away Wikipedias most valued and productive editors, as they hear much complaining and little well deserved praise. Henrik 18:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
First, Henrik, thank you. Second: Dear Anon, I have never edited / deleted / heard of the Elizabeth Morgan article. Your best bud, El Jeff. P.S. What Henrik Said. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Spoo!

I just spent, over the past two days, several hours going through my Beetle Bailey archives for the specific strip that uses "SPOO!" as an exclamation prior to any known JMS usage. I found it. The strip in question (Sunday, April 18, 1971) predates JMS's "He-Man" usage by over a decade. And the reference to it is now back in the article, footnoted in exhaustive detail (down to the ISBN of the book [long out of print, but probably not impossible to find] in which it is reprinted).

Satisfied?

James H. H. Lampert

Found on Wikipedia:Dead-end pages

Man, somebody really doesn't like you:

Jeffrxy O. Gxstafson

(Created by Wollop (talk • contribs), by the way.)

--Calton | Talk 05:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, it was I, exploiting a defect in the mediawiki software. If you look at the history (I don't want to spill the WP:BEANS), you will see how easy it is to get an article into the main namespace, almost undetected. The article did not appear on Special:Newpages, and went undetected on two other logs. I filed a bug, but nobody seems to have attempted to bother to fix it. The potential for abuse is incredibly high - this lasted in the article space for a week and a half before someone stumbled upon it (you).
There are people out there who have said far worse about me here, actually - it just comes with the job, unfortunately. Thanks for the heads up, and good work, by the way (although, that goes without saying for you). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: Republic of New Hampshire

I only just created this page the other day. I've posted a number of references to the state's website justifying my arguments, and if I have time available this week I'll be heading down to Concord to do some more research in the state archives. I'd appreciate a bit of leeway on getting the work together on this. I have another life and am trying to produce as high quality a page as possible, but cannot do it all at once. Please bear with me.Citizenposse 04:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Information added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. If you cannot immidiately add proof of what you add, then it cannot be added. You are welcome to try again when you have more sources for your information. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand that. I've added as much as I can find online, four sources some of which are on the state's own websites, so I think I've proven my case pretty well so far. I will try to get to the state archives this week. I would appreciate it if you would not treat RofNH with a double standard that is not being applied to Republic of Texas and Republic of Hawaii. I was under the impression that wikipedia was about fairness and openness, not engaging in repression of history, which some people seem to be doing here.Citizenposse 00:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Comparing the preported "Republic of New Hampshire" to Republic of Texas or Republic of Hawaii is like comparing apples and wildabeasts. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't sleep, clown will eat me RFA 33⅓

Thank you for your support during my third RFA (and priors). The self-nomination was successful, with an unexpected number of participants from all over. If you ever need anything, are feeling snackish, or would just like to chat, please feel free to visit me on my talk page; I never sleep. 8-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Drifting links

May I inquire as to the reason behind your removal of so many of the links from the Drifting (motorsport) page? While it was obvious that the links needed to be removed, to remove so many without any apparent rationale and without consideration probably was not the right way to go about things. Also, marking it as a minor edit may not have been the greatest of ideas either as it could be considered to go against wikipedia's minor edits guidelines. Most importantly I wanted to let you know that some of the links you removed were the most important ones (links to professional leagues). --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Quoth: "While it was obvious that the links needed to be removed..." Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to restate, the intended phrasing was "... that many of the links..." Unfortunately I am a horrible typist and just as bad at writing in general. To remove all the links that were removed so indescriminately sets what I must say is a very unfortunate example on how one should deal with situations on Wikipedia. Lately we've had far too much indiscriminate "problem solving" that has resulted in quite a few issues.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 06:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you! Hello. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- Fang Aili 說嗎?

Commedia dell'arte

Here's hoping that if the bunny leaves you any beans they're this kind! ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's hoping that if the bunny leaves you any beans they're this kind! ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. You protected this about two weeks ago. Since WP:SEMI is for dealing with serious, current vandals, I figure it's been more than long enough to unprotect it now. Can I ask you to check your other recent protections and lift them as necessary, also to remember protections in general? CAT:SEMI is nearly 100 items, most of them seem to have been forgotten by the protecting admin. Thanks. -Splashtalk 21:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are you reversing my edits?

You have removed my recent image of the vulva from the article vulva because you have assumed it has questionable copyright. You also attempted to remove another of my images "jeans_cameltoe" for the same reason until another admin prevented you from doing so.

I am making these edits in good faith because I believe the two images to be far superior to the ones already in the articles and illustrate the point more clearly. I am not a vandal and was the photographer of both images. Admittedly there were two images I uploaded from the web as I did not fully appreciate the copyright situation and so I accept you are doing your job.

However, I take exception to the removal of my image from the vulva when it enhanced the article and is perfectly legal! I think Wikipedia is excellent and I want to contribute positively, so please allow me to. Apologies, I have just found that it was "Nandesuka" who did that, but I think you have removed others.

Thank you Bobble2 20:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Bobble2

Ahoy. First, as you have said, your frustrations over your Vulva edits weren't reversed by me. In fact, I have never edited the page. Second, I did not attempt to "remove" Image:Jeans cameltoe.jpg, I did remove it, and image deletions cannot be "reversed" or somehow prevented after the fact by another admin. I did delete a couple of your images per policy after you willfully and intentionally uploaded a copyrighted image (specifically the cropped Tove Jensen picture, which is owned by the Color Climax Corporation of Copenhagen), and then claimed it as your own by putting a GFDL tag on it. This made every single upload you have ever made suspect. You are welcome to continue uploading images that you own, just keep in mind that uploading them and releasing them under the GFDL means anyone can use them (negating any commercial value in the images). But if you upload images that you do not own the rights to and/or willfully misrepresent the copyright status of an image again, you will be blocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Lady Jane Grey

User talk:Lady Jane Grey. Appears to be hit by an autoblock from one of your blocks, can you take a look? Cheers,--Commander Keane 23:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, the IP was unblocked (details at User talk:Lady Jane Grey), so no need for your intervention.--Commander Keane 23:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


Mediation Request

I'm taking Fred Moss to mediation, and am thus required to put

{{RFM-Request}}

on your talk page. 83.146.55.85 16:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

RFM is the wrong place. You need to go through the steps put forward in the dispute resolution process before an RFM can go forward. You have not done so. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
It is perfectly clear that some clique of admins has some sort of grudge against either me or the article; this should lead to quicker results. 83.146.55.85 16:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, of course, The Cabal. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Another Hamish Ross (talk • contribs) sock

as per established socks Judge_Howarth (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Judge_Ian_Huntley (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), we now have Judge_Wiley_Stroker (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) actively editing... — ciphergoth 20:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

not forgetting Judge_William_Stroker (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) MikeHobday 20:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Socks blocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Shazaam indeed! Swift work - thank you. — ciphergoth 21:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

AHOY!

Jeff---Thank you for the explaination. I obviously don't understand all the happenings at Wikipedia. I appreciate your apology and I offer mine for 'over-reacting' to the situation. I have been very ill recently and my patience is less than zero....that's a reason but shouldn't be an excuse. Best wishes, Lady Jane Grey 20:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey the Vandal

Say it aint so Jeffrey! Say it aint so! =) Mike (T C) 18:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

FARC

Hey there. So I decided to try my hand archiving some +2 week old FARC noms as I'm sure you'll notice. I did my due diligence, looking at the pages to see if there was still momentum to change. I've left European Union. The consensus is remove and it is three weeks old, but I did see momentum there and I hate removing such an important page. I'll leave that one to you.

My other comment is on Fermi Paradox which is also due to be removed. I was the nominator and I've worked actively to make sure the nom fails... That is, I nominated to light a fire under people but also tried to address my own concerns. It's a bit of tough call: lots of comments (some questioning my good faith, sheesh) but only three real votes, including my nom. The page is now half-done: top half decently cited and tightened, bottom half still over-bulleted, uncited, and meandering. Anyhow, I think it should still be removed as it stands and I just thought I'd tell you I'm committed to getting it back up to snuff. Having it go back through a regular FA nom I think is a good idea. Cheers, Marskell 11:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Little math

956 - 4 = 952 ;) Raul654 12:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

'Twas fuzzy indeed. My bad. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

FARC and FAR

Hey again. I was wondering if you'd noticed the now lengthy discussion on the removal talk page regarding possibly merging WP:FARC and WP:FAR. Having gone through the rather odd experience noted above of nominating to get feedback even though removal wasn't my desired outcome, it occurred to me that there should be a public review before the actual period of possible removal. Anyhow, any comment would be appreciated. Marskell 08:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Message Spam about stuff I didn't write

EXTERMINATE!
EXTERMINATE!

Hi, I never came to thank you for the message you left for me a month ago when I stepped down from being a bureaucrat. Thank you for the things you said, it's good to know there are still plenty of good people about in this project. I do not see myself standing for bureaucrat again anytime soon though who knows what the future may bring! Thank you once again. -- Francs2000 10:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)



Jeffrey—where are you?

Tony 05:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

To quote, of all people, Satan, "...going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it."
In reality, I am on a sortof unexpected, indefinite wikivacation: I have been rather busy at work lately, and after an epic April 1 with more than 600 edits/actions accross 25 straight hours... I almost felt burned out a bit. Since then, with work taking up a lot of time, I was forced into decreased wiki-activity. For the first time in well more than year I am not compelled to check my watchlist or up my edit count. As for Farc, it is simply coincidental that I have dropped away from it during a moment of great transition, but ultimately, I am cool with that. I closed almost every Farc for eight months, but stepping back has shown that it (and my watchlist) can survive without me (which is a simple fact of life here that is often forgotten - it is easy to become far too rapped up in this life while neglecting other aspects of one's life).
Ultimately, stepping back has been rather liberating. I do drop by daily and will edit here and there but as for returning at the same level I had been at through March (editing hours a day), I simply do not know. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Spam bout Brandt

EXTERMINATE!
EXTERMINATE!

I'd like to invite you to review and participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daniel Brandt. This is not a request for your endorsement, simply a request for your participation in the discussion. Thank you. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)






Afd campaign Spam

EXTERMINATE!
EXTERMINATE!

Since you've voted on the last AfD which resulted in DELETE, you might be interested, that the article is still here and I've created another AfD for it. Raphael1 18:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)







No.

Can you please revert edits to the Carlos Mencia page? (birth name, parents countries of origin). Its protected.

No it isn't. Fix it yourself. I've abandoned and disowned the article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Update to User talk:Richard Branson

Hi Jeffrey. You recently made an inquiry on User talk:Richard Branson regarding the potential violation of username policy. I have updated that page with evidence supporting your suspicion. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 05:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jeffrey - I reverted the change on "Branson"'s talk page because I had already messaged a few other interested admins with a wikilink to that section. Would that be okay, or should I go try to change those messages? - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 05:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Cool. I moved the wikilink for the other messages. I'll go meditate on AGF.
Out of curiosity, what do you have against user pages? - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 06:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll move this here then. I signed my note, and I didn't mean any offense by it. Rather, I found it amusing that someone made the accusation that my post was "unnecessarily inflammatory" not long after writing this in their edit summary to someone. Not that I'm trying to fault you, rather I was relieved to see both of us could let a little frustration show sometimes from our struggle to improve Wikipedia. But I tried to be careful in my post to just state the evidence as I had found it. That evidence overwhelmingly indicated that the user was another sock puppet of someone who had already been "indefinitely" blocked three times; at some point after "assuming good faith" for long enough and seeing persistent evidence of someone's bad faith, including obscene epithets at those of us who reverted from his linkspam for up to 8 times for the same spam, there is no longer much justification for assuming good faith. For the same reason, I didn't think my post was "unnecessarily inflammatory", as opposed to presenting the evidence, which I think was appropriate to try to protect Wikipedia by bringing attention to another sock puppet quickly, for a user with a long record of negative edits, without having to go through again the long process of repairing the damage and gathering the evidence I did to justify the indefinite blocking of the last two sock puppets. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 07:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring that this is rather pointless (and the above is a symptom of the bullshit that disenfranchises and frustrates so many, including at one time, myself), you are comparing apples to lamp-posts in regards to conduct. Posting an image of a hydra while accusing a user, in an inapropriate place, of certain conduct (whether or not it is true) is inflamatory and innapropriate. Saying a page (I had, incidentally written and guided for nine months) is shit on my own talk page when asked on my own talk page to intervene in a matter I was not needed in is simply stating my opinion - now if I had gone to the article's talk page on my own and posted an image of shit, that would be something else. Impersonating someone is bad, and blockable; changing another user's comments is just as inexcusable and blockable. I have no patience for people impersonating anyone to the detrement of the project, but I have less patience for wikilawyering and bantering about accusing users of certain conduct to the possible detriment of the project. Don't test me, the results may not be what you are looking for. As for Branson, all that stuff is irrelevant, frankly - the issue is that he either is, or isn't, and his answer to Raul's question will solve that problem toot sweet. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If I may

Suggest a userpage, if only a place to leave some barnstars (you deserve a few :) -- Tawker 05:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And I've got a few in my talk archives. My userspace (when I've had one) was always a barnstar-free zone. Thanks, though. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Leased fruit's Spam 'boot Favorite Songs

EXTERMINATE!
EXTERMINATE!

My survey has changed. I am now continuing my mission for the best songs, but now I am accepting all genres. I'm giving you a chance to revote for your top ten favorite songs of any genres (not just classic rock which is still the best). I've made a executive decision to keep the existing survey results and just add on to that with the new entries. My feeling for doing this is because classic rock is the most influential genre in music currently so it should be expressed more in the survey. Thank you for contributing in the past, and hopefully in the future. ROCK ON. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 03:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

New England

The New England debate IP came back and well, isn't too friendly or happy. I warned them about civility, but I thought you would like to know. Thanks, Yanksox (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Talk:New England
Thank you for stepping again once again. I tried to revert the abuse of the archive, but was promptly chastized. I had to be bold and still cognisent (sp?) of the discussion. I think I fumbled a little, but at least they repsected my stand in the end and didn't revert it once again. - CobaltBlueTony 17:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tactics

User also threatened to use terrorist tactics on Wikipedia[2]. Yanksox (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Your red link

Maybe user pages are a bit evil, but especially as an administrator, it might not be very helpful for newbies to click on your name and find a red link. You might want to consider adding just a line or so (something similar to what you have at the top of this page) to User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Or even just turn that into a redirect to this talk page. I don't mean to intrude too much, but thanks for listening.--Pharos 18:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've gone from one of the most active administrators on en to barely editing, so my interaction with newbs is limited. Additionally, I just plain don't feel like having a userpage (redirect or not) any more. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Dave Finlay

Please do not arbitrarily revert edits without justification, as you did here. McPhail 00:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not arbitrarily remove facts without justification, as you did here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Message

Hi, yes I'm the same Nuke-Marine that used to post more regularly on the moderate B5 newsgroup. Surprised you noticed one account. I'm guessing that means not many register daily for accounts here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nuke-Marine (talk • contribs).

I'm a bad, bad man

Jeffrey

I am going to reinstate the text on the front of RJII's page. I don't see why it should be removed simply because the user has been blocked. I am not intending to be provocative here - I genuinely think it is interesting, it puts RJII's edits in context, and I am therefore adopting the text as my own. Please assume good faith about this. ElectricRay 22:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I didn't blank it, and second, you couldn't reinstate it if you tried anyway: it's protected. And as far as assuming good faith with me, you already blew it. Testing me would not be in your best interest. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see the page unblocked, largely due to my own curiosity. I have been "working" (I use the term loosely since this editor is impossible to truly work with) ever since I came to wikipedia, and I for one would like a chance to see what they're whole purpose has been here. I know you probably won't for various policy reasons, but I really would like to see what has been making them tick. Ever since RJII have been on wiki, they has spawned a good deal of speculation and conspiracy theories, so I think it would be nice to see what it was all about. I know I'm not the only one who wants to know. You can even remove it as soon as they make the edit, I just want it to be in the history so we can look at it and see what the point was. I'm not trying to be contrary, I want you to know that, I really am just dying of curiosity. The Ungovernable Force 06:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Request denied. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Might I ask, for what reasons? The Ungovernable Force 06:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
No. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
As an administrator and authority figure on wikipedia, I would like to think you would be willing and able to explain your reasoning for actions. I find your lack of willingness to even communicate both frustrating and patronizing. This is meant to be a volunteer-run community, but that's difficult to achieve when administrators refuse to explain their reasons to us common editors. I was asking nicely and I would really appreciate a response. What policy is violated exactly, and more importantly, what harm is done in the long run by allowing this user to post this message? The Ungovernable Force 06:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

First, administrators are not "authority figures," thank god. The RJII issue has been discussed amongst the community. The protection and removal of content is in line with precedent: we've seen this shit before, and we have a pretty good idea what we're doing, actually. We will not enable a troll to satiate your curiosity. Your curiosity is completely irrelevant to the goals of this project, which is building an encyclopedia. Continuing to push for this garbage will count as diruption. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, not meaning to tread on your toes here, but I think the above response was pretty harsh. I think its pretty obvious why the request was denied, but could you try and put it in less blunt terms? While not breaching civility, being so blunt only helps to increase conflict. Clearly you are under no obligation to accede to his requests, but you could be a little nicer about it. Regards - FrancisTyers · 13:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I am under no obligation to be "nice" to any goddamnedbody. I'm here to do a job, not hold the hands of jackasses and trolls. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ð (contribs- blocking thereof)

The record of your blocking of this guy reads a little harshly (and abruptly), since he's clearly a new user. Can't you offer him a page move or something to be a little more constructive. Linuxlad 09:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Page moves are for pages. Username changes are for users with more than two constructive edits. The block was valid, and my explination wasn't harsh - this is: who are you to try to tell me anything, when you barely seem to get policy yourself? Step off. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I redirected your user page to your talk page

Since you claim that you don't want a userpage, I decided to redirect your userpage to your talk page so that it will be more convenient for people who are trying to reach you. Feel free to undo this if you want to.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 18:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus. Fucking. Christ. Somehow, people can edit an encyclopedia without knowing how to fucking read. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The deletion log of your userpage gives me endless joy. Yanksox 23:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

User:His excellency

I thought you may be interested that the length of the block of this user has been reduced to one week. See discussion on WP:AN/I. Pecher Talk 22:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If they want to continue dealing with the troll, that is their choice, I guess. I wash my hands of it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, would you kindly remove protection from User:His excellency's talk page? I noticed you added as your rationale for protection that he was indef blocked, this is no longer the case as I believe you're aware. Thanks. Netscott 06:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
What part of I wash my hands of it do you not understand? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Talrias

I reverted your reversions of Talrias' userpage. I am in frequent communication with Talrias. He is well aware of the changes made to his userpage and enjoys them. What was done to his userpage is not vandalism in any respect. Thank you, --Durin 14:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So, am I allowed to add my opinion to the page like everyone else, or is it only select contributors? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

John Strausbaugh page

Strausbaugh is known for being a controversial figure. If his work offends you please find another way to express yourself. Deleting accurate information under the guise of stating that it was posted by a publicist is not appropriate. Thank you.

ITech

Actually, it was, per our Vanity guidlines and the Manual of Style. Thank you for alerting me to your changes - the page is now on my watchlist. Continued reversion will count as vandalism. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you do not wish to explain what is not acceptable about the post, please have the courtesy to change that which is not acceptable. It is not necessary to delete the entire piece. It appears to me that it is you who are vandalising this page, not me. I will take appropriate measures.

ITech

Okay. I read the Vanity guidelines and Manual as you suggested. I'd already reverted before I read your threat. I sought advice from another administrator and am making a revision. Hopefully it will be acceptable to you. You do seem to be somewhat ruthless, but I am new. Maybe just destroying people's work entirely is par. I also did a google test on Strausbaugh to make sure he was well known enough. In quotes, the name receives 26,000 hits. The book, "Black Like You" (in quotes) receives 11,900 hits alone and was published just three weeks ago. Thank you.

ITech

I have not deleted the article (because he is decidedly notable - you don't need to quote google hits to me, I used to read his New York Press), only the content that violates our policies. You are welcome to expand my revision in an encyclopedic manner, but the publicist's unwikified, P.O.V.'d advertisement cannot be allowed to stay. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Um, thanks for the welcome--I think. The article was not written by a publicist, just a journalist who used to write for the Press. I removed all the stuff that Ziggurat explained was "puff." Please do me the favor of letting me know if something is still "unwikified," or make the changes yourself. Thank you. Incidentally, is your Rouge/Roug page really a joke? Seems pretty accurate to me, particularly considering my welcoming wikinitiation.

ITech

User:Ziggurat's edit is ideal. As for the other stuff, I don't know wtf you're talking about, honestly, and I just don't care. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/f/User_talk%7EJeffrey_O._Gustafson_Archive7_5106.html"