Template:Vandalcount

Please place your talkback and you've got mail notices below this line in this section (no subsection necessary). I plan to delete them when I have read them. Thank you.

I have provided the link documenting the cut in the defensive rebounding weight. It is from Dave Berri himself. Please assist me with the formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.30.23.6 (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. i have trouble with the right formatting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.30.23.6 (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically is wrong with that username? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote, "it appears to be biased and in poor taste."[1] Anyway, the user's been blocked indefinitely as per Template:uw-vaublock.[2]   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rephrase the question. What specifically is "biased and in poor taste" about it? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Straights could have a problem with it because it refers to a gay creature. LGBT persons could have a problem with it because it refers incorrectly to a female-named creature with the mainly-male mainly-human term "gay". Animal rights activists could have a a problem with it because it makes an animal appear to have a mainly-human sexual preference. In any case, I agree most with the blocking admin's contention that it "suggests that [the user's] intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia".   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a straight person have a problem with a reference to a gay animal? "Gay" isn't exclusive to men, and even if it were why would LGBT people have a problem with it being used to describe a woman? As a queer man I can assure you I don't find that usage problematic, and I don't think I've ever met anyone who would. How does it suggest the user's intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia? See also: Homosexual behavior in animals, Otherkin, Gay (in particular Gay#Gay community vs. LGBT community), First law of holes. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to invoke the first law of holes and stop digging. :)   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation urgently needs YOUR help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2725 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js which helps in reviewing in just few edits easily! We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, TheSpecialUser TSU

This school project is destined for the advancement of Wikimedia Foundation Projects. Thanks for the links, info on Irene, and the notion to pop it in the Create Room. What a wonderful idea for those people over at the Wikimedia Strategy Department.

 O = M _C ⁴  17:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The blue box above can be useful in one of my classroom assignments.

added edwardbot to *JeffG section  O = M _C ⁴  18:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User names that would benefit from changing them and the various reasons they were innapropriately named to begin with.

What do you think of having a classroom discussion on this aspect of creating a username.  O = M _C ⁴  18:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching how to create a good username is good. Speculating on-wiki about any negative-sounding reason for creating a particular inappropriate username is tantamount to digging a hole, see my reference to the first law of holes above.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. By the way, I suggest that you link to your user talk page archives on any current version of your user talk page; easy ways to do that are discussed at WP:ARCHIVE#Archive_box.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hey mate,

Qalakand was removed because that naming system is used for Arabic/Muslim dervied words. Kalakanda is an Indian sweet and has nothing to do w/ Islam. Indian languages do not even have an equivalent of a 'Q' inherently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.224.225 (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please supply a verifiable reliable source for that info. Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://omniglot.com/writing/sanskrit.htm - where is a 'Q' or any similar letter/sound there? you'll see 'qa' in arabic/persian words like 'al qa'ida' or 'quran' etc. i'm not sure what other info i can give you. the 'qa' sound doesn't exist in indian languages inherently. you can see the alphabets. however it is very extant in middle eastern langs. kala-art in Sanskrit, khanda (from which the english word candy derives from) (source:http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/8/304/) -sugary sweet.

a purely indian creation;nothing to do w/ arabs or islam. i feel it's approaching disrespect to misrepresent the word and it's origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.224.225 (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy & http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0192415X8100024X

i don't know which is more legitimate but either way there's no arabic influence in the word. 209.147.224.225 (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am Jerry Williams' son and am CORRECTING all the mistakes that are in this Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twmissmt (talk • contribs) 03:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please supply a verifiable reliable source for that info, and keep in mind WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im having trouble with people using school computers to vandalise wikipedia pages. I am a scientificall minded year 12 in Australia and have huge trouble editing incorrect pages because of other peoples sense of humour. I reccomend you check Abdurrahman Nafiz Gürman's page as another computer just destroyed it :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.124.1.2 (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please create an account.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, According to the Car and Driver magazine for September 2012, the Audi A4 Avant will not be continued in 2013, just to clarify.

Andy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.47.113 (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, do you think you could make a citation from http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-audi-allroad-first-drive-review ?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got the COI message but am having a hard time figuring out what was changed.I'm happy to fix it, just need to knw what is acceptbale. Thanks 208.205.38.40 (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have a record of having communicated with you before. Are you User:Robingxs?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For reverting that edit Rocastudios did on my talk page. I saw it, but you beat me to it first!

Thank you !

"....We are all Kosh...."  <-Babylon-5-> 19:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to Walid eido's page are to make right totally false allegations of corruption. This is misleading and false. He never resigned as prosecutor otherwise how could he be named a few years later at president of the Criminal court of appeal in Beirut. He only resigned to be able to present his candidature to parliamentary elections are required by law in lebanon for any one in a public office. Many Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.50.219.52 (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to discuss that on Talk:Walid Eido.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That reverted page blanking was by the original article author and may have amounted to seeking deletion as in CSD G7? AllyD (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't blank articles; instead, request deletion. ... Under normal circumstances, Wikipedia articles should not be blanked."   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, however s/he's doing it, deletion appears to be the aim, judging from this latest edit. AllyD (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That, plus G7, plus A7 Company, should make it go away.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a parent? - Jimmy Wales — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.156.85 (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you having fun with your Vodafone phone there in Auckland?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yo bro ddnt mn t disgrce mrtn yh soz m8 nuff luv — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.228.207.4 (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yo bro can you please write in full English words?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jeff G.. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Inkey Jones, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: although the article was blanked by Sj838 who was the original author, others have edited it so that G7 cannot be applied. Let the AfD decide and (per the AfD template) do not blank while discussion is ongoing. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. Please see the user's deleted page creation for some more insight on my reasoning for the G7, and copy that info to the AfD.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see. Someone else copied it to his talk page and added a "helpme", and I have told him there that now others have substantially edited it he cannot get it speedied on request, and he should say at the AfD that it should be deleted and why. A messy situation - all these SPAs wrangling, but nobody has yet actually said "Keep" or "Delete". JohnCD (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have just now. :)   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply changing the "an" in "an homage" to "a". As you should know, "an" is used when the word after it starts with a vowel or sounds like it does (when speaking). As "homage" does not start with a vowel and it doesn't even sound like it does (even though if it did "an" would only be appropriate for speech") I do not think that it should be reverted. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDigClackBick (talk • contribs) 00:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Interesting username you've got there. If you switch the first letters around, it wouldn't take too much creativity to see "The _ig _lack _ick" could be something that we wouldn't consider an appropriate username. Doc talk 00:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The verbal rules apply in both verbal and written forms. Given a silent "h", "homage" sounds like "omage" so "an" is required before it.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that my name invalidates what I say? http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDigClackBick (talk • contribs) 01:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, It's more of an "aside". I'm saying your username needs to be changed, since you acknowledge what it really refers to, and we don't want editors running around with offensive usernames. Doc talk 01:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDigClackBick (talk • contribs) 01:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, we'll see. If you add "HEIL" to things like you did here,[3] and if you change "Private Shares" to "Private Parts" like you did today[4] (presumably for the "lulz"), then your username will be the least of your worries. Doc talk 01:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now it has happened. "Flufflewuffles", don't vandalize blatantly anymore, okay? Changing the United States to "Murikka"[5] may be amusing to you, but it is what we call "not constructive". That's three blatantly bad edits now, and there should be no more. Happy editing! Doc talk 01:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sir,

How may I email you to discuss repetitive vandalism of a given Wiki page?

ResearcherJ50 (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To literally answer your question, Special:EmailUser/Jeff_G. should do the trick. But as I'm not an admin here, you're probably better off using WP:AIV if it's vandalism happening presently or WP:AN if it's something else. OTOH, if you're writing about Nolan Godfrey or User:Hawksf, please contribute to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Nolan_Godfrey.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those contributors/columnists are no longer with The Australian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.71.245 (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please supply a verifiable reliable source for that info. Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to this warning: [6]. Warning vandals you didn't revert can result in them receiving more warnings than they have properly earned. Thank you. Philip Trueman (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That warning was properly earned, and was given in the same minute it was earned. Sorry for the edit conflict.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I said. I didn't say it wasn't earned, I said that you didn't revert, which you didn't. I am unaware of any edit conflict. I came very close to issuing a level-4 on top of your level-3, for the same bad edit. I repeat: Please don't warn if you didn't revert. Philip Trueman (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy or guideline leads you to the conclusion "don't warn if you didn't revert"?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is Jared. Who are you? Please do not mess with my page. Your research is very shoddy. I have not lived in NYC since 2006. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.176.101.219 (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please supply a verifiable reliable source for your residence, and keep in mind WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JEFF: It becomes impossible to add references if you delete the changes. Goodness gracious, please give me the chance the add the refs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.249.19 (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your talk page.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was intentional. See, when I'm doing minor research for myself or friends/family, I sometimes refer to wikipedia for lists, references, extra information, etc. I was opening the Blood Type Diet page to see if there was any information about the publications of their books..when I find a page riddled with opinions and libel. In my opinion, I believe an Encyclopedia's content should be facts. Regardless of whether or not you believe in the Blood Type Diet, the page about it shouldn't contain references to people's opinions as to why it might not be true. There is no evidence to actually disprove it, as there isn't any to factually disprove the Big Bang Theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.35.236 (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please summarize what you are doing when you remove libel using an Edit Summary.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies about the editing on the Breaking Benjamin pages, I apologize to the fact that the editing was disruptive, I'm a Breaking Benjamin fan and I was just trying to help on the pages, that's all. I'll stop editing those pages. Thank You. -I'm sorry, I had to make some changes to my apology, there were some typos, I put in the wrong user number, it was the one from yesterday.- 72.85.8.186 (User talk:72.85.8.186) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.8.186 (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I decided to send you this message since you seem like someone who really does care for Wikipedia.

I have come across some individual users that, by following a particular political agenda, deny others the right to change the content of inaccurately written pages. It does not matter to those individuals the fact that evidence is offered that corroborates the changes made; these people are simply set to change history itself using whatever means possible.

The following text, that I have tried time and again to post in the talk area of three specific pages (Hellenic languages, Ancient Macedonian language and Doric Greek), has been repeatedly taken off (courtesy of the hard efforts of these individual users and all those whom they have managed to sway).

The text bellow did not at first contain any usernames; but after having observed repeated changes made in all these three pages from every one of these four particular users (User:Jingiby, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, User:Taivo and User:Kwamikagami); and after having tried to speak to them, having observed their comments and personal pages (user Jingiby in particular), I have come to the conclusion that their purpose here is only to distort facts.

Please, just take 15 minutes from your time to browse the text and links bellow. My points are valid and my facts are straight. What is happening here is just wrong and it is up to people who care about the truth to make it right. Since I am forced to resort to changing IP addresses, you can contact me if you need any additional information at aplaenas.ellinas@gmail.com or through Skype (username aplaenas.ellinas).

Thank you, Giannis

Politically motivated moderators

It is sad to see just how much damage is afforded to Wikipedia, and to science as a whole, by a handful of people with a pre-set political agenda. I am referring specifically to User:Jingiby, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, User:Taivo, User:Kwamikagami and all those who actively support their distorted view; the facts that I added have been long proven and are supported by the majority of the scientific community.

But any proof presented here, that does not fit the personal beliefs of people as those mentioned above, gets removed; the users that present the information get blocked; attempts of discussion are scorned; and everyone who visits these pages attempting to learn something they did not know get misinformed.

Proclamations such as:

“Or because Macedonian had no literate tradition. Were all of Alexander's soldiers, who went as far as Afghanistan, Macedonian? — Tamfang (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)”

“No. Most were Greek. And when Alexander spoke Macedonian, his Greek soldiers could not understand him. That doesn't mean it wasn't a Greek 'dialect', of course: Pontic and Tsakonian are not very intelligible to Standard Greek today, so it could be that Macedonian Greek was a mutually unintelligible variety. But the comments above show that this is about politics, and 'proving' who has the right to use the name 'Macedonian', not about language. — kwami (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)”

show a deep lack of knowledge of both history and of the Greek language in particular.

First issue:

“Were all of Alexander's soldiers, who went as far as Afghanistan, Macedonian?”

“No. Most were Greek”

This clearly states that Ancient Macedonians were not Greeks, which not only is a lie but only serves to complicate matters here. The correct answer here would be: “No. Most were (in the early stages of the campaign) other Greeks. (latter on, most of the army of Alexander would consist of non-Greek people)”

Second issue:

“And when Alexander spoke Macedonian, his Greek soldiers could not understand him.”

Again we see a distinction between Macedonian and Greek, which is false. But also it is not true that other Greeks (non-Macedonian) would not understand Alexander completely. They would, even if with difficulty. There is no evidence to suggest that the Ancient Macedonian Greek dialect was completely, or even for the most part, unintelligible to other Greeks. But being a dialect, distinct from other dialects, it is natural that communication would be somewhat obstructed.

Third issue:

“That doesn't mean it wasn't a Greek 'dialect', of course: Pontic and Tsakonian are not very intelligible to Standard Greek today, so it could be that Macedonian Greek was a mutually unintelligible variety.”

The use of 'dialect' here makes a clear impression to the reader that the word dialect is not used in its full meaning, when it should precisely be used as such. Ancient Macedonian was a Greek dialect, not a Greek 'dialect'. Further, being a Pontic Greek myself (third generation expatriated from Pontos), I can personally attest that our dialect is in fact understood, of course with some difficulty, by other Greeks today. It mostly depends on the cultural background of each individual Greek. For example, it is much easier to converse using Pontic Greek with someone from Crete than it is with someone from Athens.

Fourth and final issue:

“But the comments above show that this is about politics, and 'proving' who has the right to use the name 'Macedonian', not about language.”

You are trying to change the subject from proof about historical and linguistic facts to politics. This of course suits your own political agenda just fine. I am not convinced that you are not biased when you disregard proof based solely on historical and linguistic facts and shout “fire” to diverge attention from the matter at hand.

Following are four links that provide evidence, and together they form proof, that the Ancient Macedonian language was in fact a Greek dialect and not a separate language in itself. Also that the people who spoke the Ancient Macedonian dialect were people of Greek ethnicity and that they were in fact understood by other Greek people, even with some difficulty (something that is comparable to the American English dialect of the Southern States in the USA).

Link one; Alexandra Georgakopoulou, Michael Silk (2009); Standard Languages and Language Standards: Greek, Past and Present; Ashgate Publishing Limited. Centre for Hellenic Studies, King's College London; Page 53, page 69, page 71, page 94, page 200, page 264:

http://books.google.fi/books?id=s1deoQGPLWAC&pg=PA3&hl=fi&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

The pages indicated above provide proof that Pontic is a Greek dialect and not a distinct language and also give evidence of the same for the Ancient Macedonian Greek dialect.

Link two; George Babiniotis, Bela Brogyanyi, Reiner Lipp (1992); Historical Philology: Greek, Latin and Romance; Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 87; John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam - The Netherlands; Page 38: “Our position in this paper is that Macedonian, an Ancient Greek dialect, existed in an oral form […], so it did not suffer any effect from a conservative written tradition [...]”;

http://books.google.fi/books?id=MnPR4t0JfhsC&lpg=PA38&ots=y5t6QWLT9W&lr=&pg=PA38&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

The conclusion of the thorough examination of the Ancient Macedonian Greek dialect based on phonetic characteristics shows that it did not in fact comprise a different language.

Link three; Titus Livius Livy (Ab urbe condita libri - appr. 25 BCE); Translated by Cyrus Edmonds (2009); The History of Rome (Books XXVII-XXXVI); Digireads.com Publishing; Page 169: “Trifling causes occasionally unite and disunite the Aetolians, Acarnanians, and Macedonians, men speaking the same language”;

http://books.google.fi/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2Fg9RIt_CpEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA169&ots=KvOBEh9vXa&sig=mluQd1nH82fC7HaM29kZJb82UvY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

A contemporary to Ancient Macedonians, a Roman historian, clearly stated that the Macedonians spoke the same language with the Aetolians and the Acarnanians, which were other Doric Greek speaking Greeks. No mention of other, non-Doric speaking Greeks, is made by the ancient historian (so he is not referring to the koini dialect). Hence, the Ancient Macedonian Greek dialect was in itself a Doric Greek dialect.

And last but not least, link four; Classical Scholars from around the world (2009); Letter to President Barack Obama; This letter about ancient Macedonia was sent to the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, by 372 Classical Scholars from around the world:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_to_Obama_about_ancient_Macedonia

A total of 372 Classical Scholars from Universities from around the world all have signed the letter above, all claiming that the Ancient Macedonians were Greeks and that they spoke the Ancient Macedonian Greek dialect. Plain and simple. The opinions of biased moderators in Wikipedia is less than insignificant in comparison. Hopefully one day, Wikipedia can escape the tyranny of the few malignant individuals that keep the general public misinformed.

Thank you. 188.238.255.165 (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a dispute. I suggest you follow the steps detailed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff G, Yes my comment may not appear constructive towards the Cronulllla-Sutherland Sharks it is although true. I was merely pointing out a fact which may help fellow Wikipedia users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.199.220.250 (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And why did you remove a paragraph in this edit without summarizing why you did so?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is that edit DISRUPTIVE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.172.8 (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You removed "Degrassi Goes Hollywood|Paradise City" without explanation.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AMGTV Affiliations need updating