User talk:JeffBillman/archive10

Thank you

Thank you very much. I appreciate your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjcohio (talk • contribs) 01:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks are necessary. I simply acted in accordance with policy. -- JeffBillman (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot do this page with out being unbias maybe you should not do the page. People like myself are trying to find information outside of the organization that is truthful but not biased in one way or the other. You affect peoples lives in providing information so maybe you should rethink this whole effort. Sincerely David L. J. Laycock, Sr.

I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about when you refer to "the organization". Wikipedia has policies in place precisely because peoples' lives are affected in providing information: I refer you to the policy on biographies of living persons. Also, for the record I have not provided the information. I have been more than clear in my assertions that what information is provided is well-sourced, according to policy. Thank you for sharing your concerns with me, but I think you might want to share them with others at Talk:Kevin Coughlin. Best regards, JeffBillman (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JeffBillman awarded the BLP Barnstar

		The BLP Barnstar
		In recognition of your efforts to enforce BLP policy on the Kevin Coughlin article, I present you with this barnstar. Keep up the great work! — Kralizec! (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- JeffBillman (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category fix

Thanks for getting the category fix on my photo of the Aurora Center HD; I don't know why I typed "State Route 146" instead of "State Route 43". Nyttend (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Township map of Ohio

I finally found the link for the county-and-township map of Ohio from ODNR, http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/geosurvey/pdf/cotwpmap.pdf: it was linked at Zane Township, Logan County, Ohio. Unfortunately, it's down now. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, it's rotten. Quite the pity; it was a very useful map. I know we can't use it for sourcing, but would you like a copy? As far as I know, one can't send attachments via Emailthisuser; if you send me your address, I'll reply with the map attached. Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your help with that anonymous user, particularly in reverting the edits on my user page. I removed the refimprove templates on both the Kent, Ohio and Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio) articles because they really aren't needed. Both articles can still be improved in many ways, but they both are well-sourced. Their placement was done in spite, not for any actual encylcopedic reason or concern over content. It seems that when editors, particularly new editors, get in a disagreement with me, their solution is to edit the pages I edit the most. Same thing happened with a newer editor who edited the Akron, Ohio article a little while back if you remember. I feel the latest edits, particularly what was placed on your and my talk pages and in my user page could be considered Harassment. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's definitely harassment, and the anti-Mormon tone to it makes me sad-- even though I'm not LDS. I actually considered posting this to WP:ANI... probably will if the editor persists. -- JeffBillman (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is harassment; maybe it isn't. I've never actually seen that page before. I do know, however, that it's quite disruptive, and some of the edits are good examples of edit summary vandalism, not to mention the obvious personal attacks of putting this kind of thing on userpages. I would issue a final warning or a block (more likely a block) if Ruhrfisch hadn't just stepped in; as is, if I see any more problems from this IP, I'll block unless Ruhrfisch deals with it first. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the edit summary vandalism from the Kent article to which you linked on my talk page. By the way, when I saw in my watchlist your edit summary of "Also a derogatory edit summary" in a section of my talk page entitled "Harassment", I was thinking: "What am I being accused of doing?" :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Salright... I saw your summary of "Edit summary removed" and thought, "Oops... did I cross a line?" ;-) -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

I have opened a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smfhs photographer concerning the different user accounts editing Stow-Munroe Falls High School. Please feel free to comment there if you are interested, thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Webb

I did see that today and was reminded what a creepy, crooked individual he is! ;) Soon after that incident, there was a big section with bios for each inductee in the Raven Hall of Fame that did confirm at least that part was true. Honestly, though, I never used that factor in my argument of notability anyway and was surprised it was even brought up. Thanks for the heads-up though! :) --JonRidinger (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

"(Reverted to revision 317865325 by JonRidinger; Martin Davey, the former Governor of Ohio, isn't notable? Get real.."

Concerning your most recent edit on the Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio) page, your edit summary could be considered to be a personal attack. Please refrain from these types of comments. I know that people on this page have been scolded before by members who frequently edit the page, so I just wanted to give you a heads-up so that you could avoid any confrontations in the future. --24.29.248.228 (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was not a personal attack. A scarcely contained expression of exasperation on my part over the erroneous removal of sourced material (to put it mildly), yes, but not a personal attack. Thank you for your concern. -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! It just seemed like it was a little close, so I just wanted to call your attention to it so that nothing happened in the future. I was just kind of skimming through that page's edits a few minutes ago, and it looks more like a boxing ring than an edit page! I didn't know if you knew about the volatile history of the page, so I was trying to point it out.--24.29.248.228 (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider that a personal attack; not even close. As for the "volatile nature" of the edit history that's pretty typical for an established Wikipedia article to have periods like that, particularly with newer and/or anonymous editors who are less familiar with Wikipedia styles and policies. I think it's a stretch to call it "volatile" though. Contentious yes. I'm still confused in this instance why the names were removed in the first place under the edit summary of "No wiki pages not notable" when all of them do have wiki articles. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, volatile was not the only word that could have been used there, but I honestly didn't even mean anything by the comment, I just stumbled across the edit summary and it seemed that it could have been misunderstood if someone was overly sensitive. From reading the other edit summaries on the page, I saw a trend with little cat fights and such, so I thought I would save Jeff a little bit of a headache if I noted it before someone blew it out of proportion.

I don't know anything about the article or what was changed, so the part that you mentioned is news to me too! :-) I'm also not sure who you are or why you care so much about "anonymous users," (seemed to be a little bit of a jab towards me, but I'm not sure), but if you look, I have never even edited the page before (or any page for that matter). I was merely surfing the internet and decided to check out the wiki of my alma mater because I have never really dabbled in this website before. If you prefer me to make a user name to make one silly little comment on someone's wall or whatever it's called, and then never use the user name again, I will. It did not seem like an important enough change to warrant the time and effort, but I suppose if a user name is a must, then I will get one. I did not think that my comment would get this much attention, so I figured one comment without a user would be acceptable.--24.29.248.228 (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, a user name is not a necessity. Still, I do hope you'll decide to stick around and edit a few articles. There are quite a few articles about Portage County, and considerably fewer people to edit them. For example, among the regular editors who hail from Portage County, I count Jon, myself, and... uh... ;-) Cheers! -- JeffBillman (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, my comment about newer and/or anonymous users was simply a statement of fact based on experience on many articles, not a jab towards anyone in particular. The only reasons I commented on this are because this talk page shows up in my watchlist, so "Personal attacks" caught my attention and I also have made quite a few edits at the Kent Roosevelt article as I'm sure you have noticed since you saw the edit history.

User names aren't necessary like Jeff said, but I recommend them if people are going to stick around and edit. And I would hope you would since you did take the time to address something you felt was important. You obviously know at least something about Wikipedia policies and how things work here. :) --JonRidinger (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Panther

Dont tag unless you read the source properly,i qoute. " Geographic Range [top] Range Description: The geographic range of the puma is the largest of any terrestrial mammal in the Western Hemisphere (Sunquist and Sunquist 2002), from Canada through the US, Central and South America to the southern tip of Chile. While the puma is an adaptable cat, being found in every major habitat type of the Americas, including the high Andes (5,800 m in southern Peru: Sunquist and Sunquist 2002), it was eliminated from the entire eastern half of North America within 200 years following European colonization (Nowell and Jackson, 1996). A remnant Endangered subpopulation persists in Florida, and records of pumas in northeastern Canada and the eastern US are on the rise, indicating possible recolonization (M. Kelly pers. comm. 2007). . Regards Zoo Pro 02:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in again Jeff, but I found what ZooPro is talking about. The source is about the species, but the article is about the sub-species. Once I finally took my PhD in panthers, I was able to figure it out and fix the source reference so it points to the mention of the sub-species in the source, which is fact, mentioned as EN, whereas the species is LC. I hope to not offend by butting in to this interesting distinction between species and sub-species. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My further apologies, i was also mistaken in not correcting the actual listing, it is stated as endangered not as critical, so my bad aswell. Glad someone else is picking up my mistakes.Zoo Pro 03:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to trout slap me :) Zoo Pro 03:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removal of Al Toon hoax and question about Ralph Waldo Emerson page

Thank you for removing the Al Toon hoax and sending the author of the hoax a message - I know you were simply enforcing the Wikipedia guidelines but I appreciate your help as he ignored my efforts to do the same. I have a question about the Ralph Waldo Emerson page. Prior to September 2008 the page had a section for schools and other institutions named after Emerson which was removed after 2 Wikipedians suggested that such a list was not very "encyclopedic". I attended an elementary school named after Emerson in the 1960's (which I contributed to the page) and I found it useful to learn of other institutions named after Emerson. Where do you come down on this question? Thanks, Richard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mequon rich (talk • contribs) 21:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is customary, I think, to list places, institutions, etc. which have been named in a person's honor in a "legacy" section. I see nothing wrong with this, and disagree that such a list would not be "encyclopedic"... particularly if the subjects listed had Wikipedia articles of their own. Thanks for asking my opinion! -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, I felt those who removed the section were being overly "pretentious". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rschwalb (talk • contribs) 01:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one of the reviewers watching the Ralph Waldo Emerson page already removed the list that I re-added as a supplement to the Legacy section, and began a dialogue on the talk page about reaching consensus on this. I have 1 other problem. I had trouble finding the Wikipedia username that I used a couple of times in 2008 (Mequon Rich) so I created a new one (Rschwalb) and then later today I found the original. Today I have been inadvertently posting / sending messages with both of these. Should I just stop using one of them from now on? Can I delete that one so I am not accused of Sockpuppetry? Thanks -- comment added by Rschwalb (talk • contribs)

Living Church of God article

Hello,

I know enough about the Worldwide Church of God and Living Church of God to help you edit your article about Living Church of God. I was a member of Worldwide from 1986 to 2003, and know a lot about Orthodox teachings and sabbatarian teachings, etc. Your article is fairly good, but it needs some correction. I can elaborate. Thank you.

Seth Massey sethsart@yahoo.com

70.110.87.29 (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seth! First off, it's not "my" article. Sure, I've made edits to it, but we don't take ownership of articles in Wikipedia. So, that said, by all means please do elaborate! In fact, let's collaborate. Cheers! -- JeffBillman (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the Deal?

Did I wrong you in some way? Why this edit summery towards me?--Jojhutton (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry. It was not meant against you personally, and in fact I quickly reverted that edit once I calmed down. I simply am tired of how sourced edits concerning that subject are shot down time and again for "lack of consensus". Consensus is not needed on an edit unless the claims made are in controversy, and there ought not have been anything at all contentious about a claim backed by Hannity's own employer. Cheers! -- JeffBillman (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. I did see that you reverted your own edit later. I was just looking for clarification. Thanks for your reply.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Couthouses

Greetings! I've left a note on another page, but in case you don't see it I'll post it here. Awhile back I added both the original Hancock County, Ohio courthouse and the current Hancock County, Ohio courthouse. Both are on the NRHP, but only the latter is still used for judicial functions. I saw there was a subsection of the courthouse info box for historic courthouses and listed the first courthouse in that. Is this correct? I'm still a bit new to this, but I was hoping to list the courthouse where people might find it. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdrj2 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Church of God

Hi JeffBillman, I have tried and failed to engage OkayThere in constructive discussion regarding portions of the UCG page content. This user insists on deleting certain content in spite of significant references and the importance of certain background information to explaining the who and what of UCG.

You've been around this page longer than I have, so please let me know if you have ideas on how to proceed. I am considering opening a dispute resolution or edit warring intervention request. Waitingwatch (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer granted

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]

Cleanup... since February 2006

Way the heck back in April 2006, you asked if anyone wanted to clean up Travis Tritt. Take a look at it now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]