User talk:JeffBillman/archive7

Welcome JeffBillman/archive7!

Hello, JeffBillman/archive7, I'm xaosflux 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, and use edit summaries whenever you change a page. If you have any questions, need help or assistance, check out Wikipedia:Ask a question or contact me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Enjoy Wikipedia!!

— xaosflux ^Talk 04:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion nomination

Please note your nomination has been moved to : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fighting Whites. WP:MFD is for non-articles. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Sorry about that. -- JeffBillman 05:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Windham

In my view, the purpose of a see-also is to point the reader to another somewhat related article. We don't source articles from other articles; as the only way we're supposed to source articles is from reliable sources, you've definitely done rightly with the history section of Windham Township. As long as you have the information referenced in the township article, as you've done, there's no real need to indicate that it's also on the village article. In my opinion, the only reason that you'd need a {{Main}} is if you had a small history section and were seeking to point to the history section of the village article, but surely the history section in the township article isn't a summary of something on the village page. Not to say anything's wrong about that! Nyttend (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Thanks for helping me out with that Bama fan. I am sick of dealing with them, but, at the same time, I always appreciate an opportunity to pull out my old Crimson Tide jabs. Btw, my name is also Jeff. It is a sweet name, I think. Iowa13 (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Though I am an Ohio native, I have no problem with the SEC. My son is a huge Florida Gators fan, and may well end up there in seven years. I just don't like to see vandalism. (Besides, what's he so hyped up on? Bama went 7-6, last I checked, and their new head coach Nick Saban has had, what, two good years since his head coaching debut at Toledo? Between he, Urban Meyer, and Les Miles it makes me wonder if the SEC can produce a decent team without an Ohioan at the helm. ;-) ) -- JeffBillman (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandy vs. Miami U.

I'm quite impressed you found the obscure Miami reference on Vandy's baseball page! Hope you didn't take any offense from the matter - none was intended. Oughgh (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken at all... in fact, I was going for a lighthearted mood. On a lark, I looked to see what links to "Miami of Ohio". As I recall, there were two articles and three archived talk pages. So needless to day it didn't take much to make the appropriate edits. -- JeffBillman (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National High School Football Champions

Jeffbillman - National High School Football Cmapions - 1982 Moeller High School , I do not know if you can fix it, But Gerry Faust was Not the head coach, He was already at Notre Dame University by 1982, I do not know who was the coach at Moeller than, but it was not faust. Thank you for youre help last time , —Preceding unsigned comment added by JM1971 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here we are... according to the Cincinnati Enquirer, it was Steve Klonne. "Klonne was asked to resign despite a 19-season record of 169-48, including two state titles (1982, '85) and a USA Today national championship in 1982."[1] I'll make the edit shortly. -- JeffBillman (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1951

Jeff- can you also add this the head coach of 1951 Weymoouth High School was Harry Arlanson

 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:2000.04.0001&query=keywords%3D%2335

 Thank You  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JM1971 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 19

Please do not make those edits to that page again. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It was not vandalism. In fact, I was reverting the edits of a user who was blindly following Wikipedia guidelines (suggestions, not rules) with no regard for encyclopedic content. -- JeffBillman (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Johnson Farm

Hey thanks! I did notice that page had recently been created and hope to be able to add to it sometime soon. I do know it is no longer used as a welfare farm. The orchards and strawberry fields were removed around 2002 (much to area Mormons' disappointment), though I have no documentation of that, just memory. I'll try to get more documentation before I make any changes. Thanks again! I appreciate the note! --JonRidinger (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you very much, it's my first! Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the award! Reggie Perrin (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

I am moved ;-) Thanks to you I got my first barnstar. Gugganij (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ratz and Up

You've read the article and saw that there wasn't any Ratz info in it, so you asked if we had any that was mysteriously being withheld. I suggested that you ask your question on a fan site as info is not entered into WP without proper citations (especially for future films that are still being developed). Since you expressed curiousity as to how fansite cites could be handled, I directed you to a related article with the exact same topic in its history (the inclusion of Ratz in Ratatouille) so you could see how the question of whether Ratz was in that film or not that was handled historically before the official announcment came out. If you want the short answer, *all* mentions of Ratz's involvement in UP will be deleted until official word comes directly from Pixar. If you want the long answer, I've pointed you in the directions you need to gather more info on the topic. If you have specific questions about the article content itself, then add to the discussion on the UP page. If you would like to discuss this specific aspect of the topic, feel free to add to my talk page instead. Cheers!SpikeJones (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you ascribe to me a level of... well, I'm not really sure what, but suffice it to say that you assume from me statements that I've not made, and thoughts that I've not had. I don't believe that info is being withheld, "mysteriously" or otherwise. I simply meant to point editors toward research on the topic that might not otherwise be explored for reasons that are really quite innocent.

Up (film) is still a relatively new and short article... though now that I look at the article history, I see you've been kept rather busy reverting premature edits. And rightly so: Having just helped to stave off the masses from prematurely declaring Fidel Castro not only succeeded but dead, believe me, you have my sympathies! And perhaps my apologies as well; I should have looked at that edit history before asking my question in talk. Hmmm. Well, anyway, that rather blows holes in what I was about to say. I was about to say that it was reasonable to presume that there are research avenues that have yet to be explored, but it looks like we've been down that road, haven't we? Oh, well. In light of all this, I guess I'll just ask you to assume that I have a belly button and move on. Happy editing! -- JeffBillman (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said ...that you assume from me statements that I've not made...I don't believe that info is being withheld, "mysteriously" or otherwise. This was inferred from your statement of "wondered if reliable sources could be found to state this", as if people knew that Ratz was in the film but were purposely keeping it from the article. As you've seen, that's far from the case as all we're doing is ensuring that it's added only after it's been announced, not as a speculative wishlist from many of the Pixar fans who believe it needs to be added to every Pixar-related article upon creation. I'm glad that you saw that there are people merely monitoring the situation to keep WP as fact-based as possible (for what that's worth, of course.). Please add whatever research you find to this or other articles. We enjoy editors who understand the policies and can help keep the tide of nonsense to a minimum. Thx. SpikeJones (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An epilogue: I re-read your above comment and see that I may have been a bit.... short. Apologies for that. Wasn't intentional. Compared to the more political areas (Fidel?) the pop-culture pages tend to draw a lot more attention from the Masses of Typing Monkeys. SpikeJones (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many is many?

The template was created for occasions in which there are so many editors and edits that everyone is stepping on each other's edits, assuredly not occuring on the article in question.
Ten edits by seven editors in 24 hours is really not that many.
Here is the occasion that the template was designed and intended for: more than 600 edits in two and a half days, with more than fifty editors interfering with each other's work.

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not counting related articles, such as those edits at Fidel Castro. Plus, the template was originally misapplied to another article before it was placed on Cuban presidential election, 2008. How many is many? Does it matter? If we had to count the edits before placing the template on the article, rather than placing the template on what could conceivably be a current event article, that would rather defeat the purpose of having a current event template, now wouldn't it? By the way, we WERE tripping on one another's edits at Fidel Castro today. Again, I don't appreciate your rules-lawyering to try to second-guess the actions of editors after the fact, you damned REMF. -- JeffBillman (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:The Current Events Barnstar

Thank you so much! I guess it's really easy to work on current events when you also work for Wikinews ;-) Happy editing! --Agüeybaná 15:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suphur Springs - Tampa

You're right, don't know what I was thinking. Early morning brain fart, I guess... Zeng8r (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa Bay Area/Education

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Tampa Bay Area/Education, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Tampa Bay Area/Education is a test page.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Tampa Bay Area/Education, 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) 22:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio picture

Hi Jeff, this is Nyttend; I'm on Easter break, and I'm staying with relatives that don't have Internet access. I only have a minute now; sorry that I can't help you right now. I will be able to help you when I get back to my dorm on Monday or Tuesday. 172.165.116.190 (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...first off: does your company want it to be usable by anyone for any purpose? Images on Wikipedia have to have pretty broad licensing, although they don't have to be public domain (of course, they can be if so desired). Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue the conversation here, if that's okay. The company president has said he wants to release it through the GNU GPL. Now, I'm not sure he fully understands the ramifications of that (i.e. usable by anyone for any purpose) but it's been given to me as my call, so it would seem to be what I'm comfortable with. If I had produced the original image, I'd be fine with just releasing it in the public domain, no attributes required. But since I wasn't the one who actually went up in the plane over Kent, I don't have that moral right (IMO). As I see it, the image was a work for hire done for my company, thus the company has copyright and can dispose rights as we desire; even so, I'm a bit hesitant to give Wikipedia licensing without attribution in this case, again because someone else went up in the plane. (And I intend to find out who, before I release the image.) So we'd probably be looking at GNU GPL with attributes. -- JeffBillman (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garrettsville, Ohio

Jeff,

My contributions to the Garrettsville, OH page are most definatly constructive and relevent. Mike and Walters blow out was big news around town for a lonnng time.

Please consider restoring my edits.

Thank You, Justin Pesicek

Hi, Justin!

I'm a resident of Windham, and a graduate of Windham High School. However, I will admit that I only recently returned to the area, thus I am not quite up to speed yet on area developments over the last 17 years.

Still, the edit was problematic on a number of grounds. First, it's not sourced: A search on the Record-Courier and Weekly Villager websites came up empty, leading me to question the veracity of the "blow out". Next, the edit does not suggest notability. Would a reader from the UK or Germany care about what happened to these two men-- assuming, of course, said reader would have some reason to view an article on Garrettsville in the first place? As written, I'd have to say no, not really. In fact, even I, an area resident, found myself unable to give a... well, care.

But most importantly, your edit violated a rather important Wikipedia policy, as described at WP:BLP. You called a person a "retard". Such derogatory labels cannot be allowed to stand on Wikipedia: This isn't a tabloid. "Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly," as stated on the WP:BLP page. That's the primary reason your edit was reverted, and if it is to be reintroduced in the article it MUST be reworded. Thanks for stopping by, and I hope this addresses your concerns. -- JeffBillman (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Surveillance Counter-Measures

Re: Technical Surveillance Counter-Measures: Wow... glad you caught that, as it certainly wasn't what was intended; I'd only meant to undo a spammed external link in that article and several others. Seems the utility I was using did something other than what it reported, so I'll review the other edits as well. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, and sorry for the inconvenience. --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]