User talk:Jay Gatsby

Alan Macfarlane

Hello, Jay Gatsby, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

I removed your speedy deletion tag from Alan Macfarlane, as the article in question clearly describes the significance of the subject. In fact, it seems to me that he meets the WP:PROF and WP:BIO standards (as an author), so this page probably wouldn't be deleted even in a full debate. Anyway, just wanted to let you know while I was welcoming you. :)

Again, welcome! Mango juice^talk 04:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

Hi Jay,

For simple uncontroversial and obvious page moves, such as Principle of lateral contiuity -> Principle of lateral continuity there is no need to go through the Requested Moves page, you can simply do the move yourself by clicking the "move" button at the top of the page when you're logged in. In this case I've just made the move myself. Hope that helps, and welcome to Wikipedia! — SteveRwanda 17:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi, Jay Gatsby, thank you for applying for VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now authorized for use, so if you haven't already, simply download VandalProof from our main page and install it, and you're all set!

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof.

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User VandalProof}} (which will add this user box) or [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof]] to your user page.

If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! - Glen 08:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi, Jay! Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage today. Based on this edit, it looks like it was the creator of these deleted articles, one of which I nominated for speedy deletion yesterday. Anyway, thanks a lot for looking out for other users' pages! See you around! - Tapir Terrific 03:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KFC

Hi, i just wanted to clarify why i removed part of the KFC article. I removed the following: In the video game, Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, one of the resturants is a spin-off of KFC. The resturant is called Cluckin Bell. Here is their song: Cock-a-doodle-do, it's time for chicken Cock-a-doodle-do, it's time for a feast Eat a ninety-piece bucket, you can tell He's been to Cluckin' Bell The chicken is a bird with a tiny brain So we assume he doesn't feel any pain We shrink their heads and we breed 'em fast Six wings, forty breasts, then they're gassed Cock-a-doodle-do, we're psychotic crazies Cock-a-doodle-do, factory farming's insane We denied it all before our stock price fell Come down to Cluckin' Bell! because it was in it's own seperate trivia section, when one was already present, and was already mentioned in said trivia section. Thanks, 202.7.183.131 10:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I didn't see the other Trivia section there. Jay Gatsby^(talk) 10:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done

Hi Jay. I wanted to congratulate you for doing some really great work fighting vandalism. Here's a barnstar for your efforts. Wear it with pride! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sam! Jay Gatsby^(talk) 11:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jay

Hello, Jay. Please don't let the multiple-IP user's personal attacks made against you (and others) at the CofCC page discourage you. We could still use your help! We are having the same problem with the same user at the Haley Barbour page, by the way. --Alsayid 00:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HEY

I noticed that you were fairly active on the Great Gatsby page. I recently noticed that you reverted my summary edit. Because I do not know all the rules that I might have broken, I'd be delighted to hear why my edit seemed innappropriate.

Other than that, you history checks you out as a fighter of vandalism. Great job.

-PsychicPsycho

Maschke Theorem

Similar remarks: The Maschke Theorem page ( it should be Maschke's Theorem in English anyway) was rather loose in its terminology, and on May3/4 2007, I tightened it up, retaining the spirit and key ingredients of what the original author intended, expanding a little. It takes a real expert to understand and amend the work of an expert, and a real expert would have known that this was an improvement on what was there before. I would have thought that a goal of Wikipedia was to continually improve its accuracy and expand its informativeness. If someone else can improve my accuracy in future, I will be delighted.

Geffrey 08:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You left numerous spelling and grammatical errors and removed all mention of semisimple rings, which doesn't make any sense to me. That is why I reverted your edits. Jay Gatsby^(talk) 09:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I want to get into this, but I'll have one more try. I'm not exactly a vandal. Acknowledge typo "immeediate" instead of "immediate" on my edit- we all make mistakes . Historically, Maschke's theorem was proved in the terms that for representations of finite groups over complex numbers, invariant subspaces are complemented ( this is the correct spelling, by the way, of the mathematical sense in which this is used) ( in modern terminology, modules for complex group algebras of finite groups are completely reducible). The equivalence between the semi-simplicity of the complex group algebra of a finite group and complete reducibility of its modules is now part of the more modern developments of ring theory, and explains the link between the perspective I took in my revision and the general theory of semi-simple rings. In other words, the way Maschke's theorem is stated in the reverted text is a corollary of ( after a lot of theory) the way it was stated in my revision, which is historically closer to the original statement of the result. The text in the reverted edit implies that semi-simplicity of the group algebra came first, which is not so (it may be taught that way in some courses, and appear that way in some books)- check out St. Andrews Math History website for example ( where Maschke's claim to the theorem is called into question anyway). Geffrey 15:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for clearing up List of University of California, Davis faculty. I tried, but there was good mixed up with bad and I was having trouble finding a good revert date. Thanks for your vigilance :) WDavis1911 08:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gatsby

Obviously you're a fan. I noticed your favourite excerpts, mine would have to be the one line by Gatsby; ""Can't repeat the past", he said incredulously, "Why, of course you can."" Anyway, just wanted to say hullo. --Counter-revolutionary 12:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu-German conspiracy

Hello, I noticed you undid an edit I made adding the {{Ghadar Conspiracy}} to the UC,Berkley. I did not intend to indicate that the University made the conspiracy. If you saw the template, you will notice the link was included in the section that was relevant to the Ghadar party (ie, UC berkeley was the origin of the Ghadar party, and hence relevant to it, as the Hindu-German Conspiracy article explains.). I do not wish to get into an edit war over this, but I am dissapointed you ignored the request I left in the edit summary asking that I be informed if the edit was undone. At the least, it showed a lack of common courtesty to a fellow editor.Rueben lys 00:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then a link to the Ghadar party would be appropriate. But as you admit, the university was not involved in the conspiracy. Jay Gatsby^(talk) 04:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UCD Edits

Hey there. I just wanted to drop by to let you know that I've reverted your edit on: University of California, Davis. I did check the documents and UCD is indeed a school in those categories, so I've put them back. If you'd like to discuss this further, let's do so on the UCD talk page. Thank you! Pyrofork (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of M4p converter

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on M4p converter, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because M4p converter is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting M4p converter, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Logo-cyberboard.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo-cyberboard.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed your recent edits and thought you might want to become a member of the California State University WikiProject. We've recently revamped the project page and started a drive to improve California State University-related articles. We have a lot of articles under our project and would like assistance getting them to good article status. Hope you'll join us. Go STATE!

Image copyright problem with Image:Sosmath-logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Sosmath-logo.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo-cyberboard.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo-cyberboard.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley

The University of California and the Berkeley campus were originally synonymous in academic circles and still is to this day when it comes to athletics. Many people refer to the Berkeley campus as the "University of California" and adding a simple link at the top could help alleviate confusion. --CASportsFan (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite any references for this? I have not once heard anyone refer to the campus as the University of California. Jay Gatsby^(talk) 19:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try going to their website: calbears.com:"California Golden Bears - The University of California Official Athletic Site." Maybe you could visit the website of the Associated Students of the University of California [1], University of California Rally Committee [2], University of California Marching Band [3], etc. You obviously don't live in the state of California or follow Pac-10 athletics . . . all athletic venues are all clearly marked with the words: University of California. You can also look at the wikipedia page on the History of the University of California, Berkeley. --CASportsFan (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of these is actually a reference to UC Berkeley itself, but rather to an organization which operates within the campus. Moreover, the names of these organizations are historical artifacts from when the campus was known originally as University of California. No one today under the age of 60 would refer to the campus itself as the University of California (maybe as Cal, Berkeley, or UC Berkeley, but not U of C) and anyone who still does would be greeted with quizzical looks begging the question "Which campus within the system do you mean?"

Nevertheless, I can appreciate the fact the UC Berkeley was originally named University of California and was referred to as such for a significant amount of time, so I won't revert the navigation link. --Jay Gatsby^(talk) 19:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UC Davis

Not sure why you keep insisting on keeping the status quo. I think there needs to be some major reorganization and picture updates. The quality and design of the page is outdated and unattractive. Peter Shields donated money to build the Library which is rightfully named after him but why would I want to see him as the first image that appears on the wiki entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas117 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley

Hi Jay!

What are your thoughts on not mentioning that Berkeley is a public Ivy?

Thanks for your contributions to the page!!!!!!!!!!!

68.63.142.57 (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vi Hart 3RR

Your recent editing history at Vi Hart shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You yourself violated the rule. This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. If you impose a 24-hour ban on me, then you will have to ban yourself also. Jay Gatsby^(talk) 07:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped at the third revert. You did not. The rule is *no more than* three reverts. You had four tonight. And of course I'm not going to impose anything on you; I'm too closely involved. Someone else will have to do it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Not listed in the mathematics genealogy project"

Re your inane statement in your new Category:Amateur mathematicians that amateurs are not listed in the mathematics genealogy project: Actually, this is a completely separate issue. People who do not have a doctorate in a mathematical discipline are not listed in the mathematics genealogy project. This is correlated with but logically unrelated to the question of whether they are paid to be a mathematician. And your listing of Vi Hart as an amateur is also dubious since she has in fact been paid (by the Khan academy among others) for her mathematical work. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I merely copied the text from the List of amateur mathematicians, a list which has existed since 2004. Jay Gatsby^(talk) 07:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you copied someone else's stupidity rather than writing it yourself. That reflects well on you. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to engage in name calling here. I'm waiting for evidence that Vi Hart is an expert in some field of math. Being an educator/entertainer does not count. Jay Gatsby^(talk) 07:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, she's being paid to make entertaining YouTube videos, and to educate the internet world; not to do any real mathematics. Jay Gatsby^(talk) 07:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that anything other than research mathematics is not real mathematics and doesn't count, but I still don't see any justification for such a limited view. Repeating the same thing over and over again without going into more detail won't help persuade anyone else of your side of the issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said "research" mathematics or "professional" mathematics. I said that the person has to be considered an expert in their field, which is the definition of the word "mathematician." Jay Gatsby^(talk) 07:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of deletion tags from the target of an active deletion discussion

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Category:Amateur mathematicians. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason for the deletion tags? Because you simply dislike the category? So much for NPOV. Jay Gatsby^(talk) 07:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go read the CfD. It doesn't matter what the rationale is or whether I agree with it. The rule is: Do not ever remove active deletion discussion notification messages. By doing so you only make it harder for others to find and contribute to the discussion, which will carry on regardless. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your large scale recategorisation of mathematicians. There should be some WP:CONSENSUS about how this. This is begining to look like a breach of WP:POINT and could lead to a block. Consider this a final warning before a block.--Salix alba (talk): 08:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the only responses to my edits have been either to (a) undo my edits, (b) nominate my content for deletion, or (c) threaten blocks. Isn't this supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? It looks like I can only get new content in if I'm willing to spend hours policing my edits and arguing with you guys. Jay Gatsby^(talk) 08:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes, if you want to make a large scale change to the way we categorise mathematicians then you will need to spend time engaging with other editors to establish a consensus. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates describes the way articles can be grouped. Over the 10 or so years the project has been used editors have felt it better to use a list for amateur mathematicians rather than a category as this allows some explanatory text not possible with a category. There are problems with using a category for amateurs as it may not be a WP:DEFINING characteristics. --Salix alba (talk): 09:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jay Gatsby. 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]

Orphaned non-free image File:ST-TNG Thine Own Self 2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ST-TNG Thine Own Self 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jay Gatsby. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at GameStop short squeeze. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting evaluations of the The Great Gatsby FAC nomination

Hello. As you're one of the more active editors of The Great Gatsby article, I was hoping you might weigh in on its current nomination as a Featured Article Candidate. As any Wikipedia editor can participate in a review of a FAC nomination, it would be appreciated if you would contribute an evaluation of the article, whether pro or con. → Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Great_Gatsby/archive2 — Flask (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]