Hi. You deleted Mall-Central.com for blantant advertising. How come. I was not trying to be blantant. Perhaps you can help me as to how to improve it.
Hi. You deleted Mall-Central.com for blatant advertising. How come. I was not trying to be blatant. Perhaps you can help me as to how to improve it.
Revision as of 21:38, 20 February 2009
Talk page
Welcome to Jamie's talk page!
Please add new messages to the bottom of the page. If a conversation is started here, I'll respond here; if it starts on your talk page, I'll respond there.
Contacting me
I prefer to communicate via talk pages. Please only email me if there is a good reason not to conduct a conversation on a talk page. I usually do not respond to emails unless there's a valid reason why the question could not have been posted on a talk page.
Why did you remove my external links?
If you've come here because you want to know why I removed some external links you've added, please read Wikipedia's policies on spam and Wikipedia external link guidelines first. Because of Wikipedia's popularity, it has become a target for folks looking to promote their sites, which is against Wikipedia policies. If you read WP:SPAM and still feel that your link(s) does not violate those policies, let me know.
One common argument I hear is But so-and-so link is on that article, and it's commercial!WP:EL doesn't explicitly forbid In links to commercial sites; it depends on the notability of the link, its content, and if it's a reference or a notable pro/con argument on a controversial subject, etc. On the other hand, I think that many Wikipedians would agree that there are way too many commercial links at present time, so feel free to "prune away" if the link doesn't meet guidelines in WP:EL. Incidentally, if you've come here to complain that I've deleted links to your blog (especially a blog with advertising), don't bother. You'll have to find free advertising somewhere else. A good Google search will reveal plenty of places for that sort of thing.
Vandalism and insults left here will be recycled in the bit bucket. Remember: be nice!
PLEASE LEAVE NEW COMMENTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE.
Ohnoitsjamie: (Again, hoping I'm doing this right...) Just wanted to thank you for unblocking me, I really do appreciate it. I'm still reading and mostly lost, however, and I was wondering if there are consultants that I could offer to pay for an hour of their time on the phone related to the whole Wikipedia movement. I really like and respect what you and everyone else involved is doing; it's really quite amazing. I come from academia, and probably have a lot to contribute, but I'm not sure and would certainly benefit from being able to speak with someone the old fashioned way. Any thoughts? Mandelman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandelman (talk • contribs) 00:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cascading page protection
Could you make some edits to {{User WikiProject Spam}}? I tagged the talk page with {{editprotected}}; but when I dug into it further, I realized that the userbox isn't protected directly - it's being indirectly protected because it's used on your user page which was protected with cascading page protection. I was waiting for someone to respond to the editprotected request - but thought I would ask you as well, since you're the protecting admin. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Jamie! I tried, and sorta succeeded, to get a page onto the whitelist here, but the complexities of the code thwarted the admin who agreed to it. He suggested turning to the technical village pump, but no one ever responded. Would you be willing to give it a go?--otherlleft (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In your business I suspect you missed this request earlier - you're generally excellent at replies. Is the above something you feel you can assist with?--otherlleft (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I must have missed this earlier. I made tweak attempt at the whitelist, but I haven't had a chance to test it yet. I notice the whitelist code for other suite101 sites is a bit more complicated because they're using Cold Fusion on the site, which in their case, hides the file name being server. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say that there's not much information?. If you find a website of this park with more information about the park, said it to me, and I'll put it the wikipedias as external links, but because it's is form Barcelona's Council, there is not any official page, or any page dedicated only to this park.
And it's useful, because every day, at least twenty people visited it (from wikipedia), and they not only visit, they see an average of twelve pages per visit.
So I think that you didn't know the situation about this important tourist point of Barcelona, it's not as Sagrada familia, another work of Gaudí, witch has a official website.
I can't say you that you must put it (you are an admin, and I'm an user), but I can explain the situation of this website. And I make this because is my fault, and this website is here because I put it in many wikiepdias, because I didn't know that all this would happen.--RobCatalà (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's also split up into small bundles of information on each page to maximize ad hits. The content is no where near good enough to justify linking to it anyway. --GraemeL(talk)02:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok don't add to wikiepdia this webiste if you don't consider it's important, but don't say that I only want to ear money because you don't know the situation.
I'm a student (catalan) that as a secondary school project (two years, like the degree one, but for secondary school) I make this website, and I don't separate the information to earn more money, I make it because it's more useful for the visitor, I recognize that there could be more information, but sorry I'm not a professional as you think you are, and I made what I can.
I thought wikipedians were another type of people, I like too much the purpose of wikipedia, but now I've seen that the administrators of the English wikiepdias are as what you've demonstrated.
Is possible that I'll edit in the Spanish wikiedpia, but, not here, please, because your and administrators, could you erase this user RobCatalà , and now I think that I've waste lot of time doing Interwikis, wits this user, and all this work for nothing. It's very good to have bots antispam, but if a website is not spam, you should reconsidered, but well, English users are (I won't continue to avoid wasting time. If your are a legal person don't erase this post, It's not spam, or vandalism, but it's important because other people can read it.
If you think that my reaction is not logical, please read this, if now you go to a page, and make spam, without knowing it, I only put the links in others wikiepdias, because I know that English is the most spoken language in the world, and in all countries there are people who speak it, and a bot undo all, (logical, because is spam) you should think -oh, I should solve this- so I did, I went to the bot page, I talked with the person who controls it, and he agreed me that It was my fault. So I said sorry to everybody, and that I won't make spam again. For the moment a normal thing. But I don't understand that in three seconds a page or a user could be block, but to unblock, you can spend days... So the person who controls the bot said that I should wait an administrator, and wow, this two persons thing that because they don't want, oh, the link can't be in this page. So, good administrators, I don't want to think when you'll have to take important's decisions.
If you don't understand something sorry but this isn't my language. And remember Ohnoitsjamie or GraemeL delete my user please, and bye for ever. --exRobCatalà (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any Wikipedian has the right to WP:VANISH, but we don't generally delete information unless there is a privacy concern. If you do want your userpage deleted, I will also remove this from my talk page. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes one administrator, you, and now, Guy too(influenced by you) but there is another administrator, Stifle, who don't think as you. So if I ask for another opinion don't make someone say what you think (this is normally say Freedom of speech). So please can I ask to Guy to look it as an impartial administrator. And you can look the Spanish wiki, there is another person who think that it's a good website. Thank's--RobCatalà (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of it, having been around here for several years. That policy has nothing to do with my opinion that your site is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Also see our WP:COI policy. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank's for the article, I've read it, you can think that I'm not respecting this rule, but, I can too think that I'm respecting it, so now comes when I say what I think:
I've read it and I can only compare my situation with:
Self-promotion
Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates.
Examples of these types of material include:
1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).
2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages.
3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.
But I don't promote any product, because I don't earn money for anything (Google adsense it's not a product, and I won't be never rich by this program, and neither for only an advertisement), so the first one, no. It's not my personal site, it's a site about a park, so the second no. And the third, it's not a material to complement the article (it was written before the website). The only reason to put the link is to give to the reader the possibility to complement the information with another format of information, the website has parts which are much more visual than wikipedia (wikipedia is a encyclopedia, and the website is for the tourist).
This link is not a "advertising-laden site", if this would be, all internet, incuding google webpage would be advertising-laden site (there are more advertisment links in them than in parkguell's one). So don't close a talk, as a dictatorian person, THIS IS CLOSED, please explain the reason of your opinion, If I made an error (not vandalism, only put links in other wikipeidas) give me the oportunity to solve it, not close talks, or influence other persons. Thanks for your time. (that's the job of administrators)--RobCatalà (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And about the other administrators, yes I asked for more opinions, I didn't look that rule before, so I've said to the others not to answer. (more in Waggers user page. Thank's for all--RobCatalà (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for vandalizing
I don't know if you remember or even still care about this but about a month ago I was trying to edit the article "Dracula". I didn't know what I was doing because I had just started a few minutes before I edited that article. I messed up and I didn't realize that someone had removed my edits so I kept on putting them back. You gave me a last warning for vandalizing. I realized what I did wrong and now I know what I'm doing. So I just wanted to say sorry. I didn't mean to vandalize it was an accident. well sorry.--VampireKen (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I Delete my vandalism warning templates?
Hey Jamie, I told you above where I got them from. Now is it ok if I erase them? or get rid of them? I wanted to ask first. I don't know if I can or not without permission from the person who gave them to me. Thanks!--VampireKen (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'm convinced that you're planning on using your account constructively from here on out, so I have no problems with you deleting the warnings. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk06:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And me! I apologise! was going to delete it anyway
ERM
Hi, could you please have a look here? Electronic medical record An editor has deleted every instance the term "electronic medical record" in this article and replaced it with another, obscure term that means something different and that may be a company's product name. Ta. Careful Cowboy (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey... saw your edits re: markprindle-dot-com. Yes, tough call, as there could be some value (and he does have a reasonable history). The massive spamming, as well as the fact his status as a "reliable source" was questioned at a FA review, made me lean towards removal. There are still about a hundred or so links left; I've been working away at removing the ones that are just straight review links, but leaving the ones that are incorporated as references within the body of an article. --Ckatzchatspy04:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to some of the articles of wikipedia, which was:
List of Online Translations of the Quran
I believe, I may have added it to more articles than was needed, you should remove it from those articles with which this is not related. But you have deleted it even from the articles titled "Translation of the Quran" and also "List of Translations of the Quran" with which this link is fully compatible.
Kindly, if you have genuine reason then let me know about that. I too don't want to advertise myself on the wikipedia. My intentions are not negative. So kindly either allow me to have this link there, or let me know the reason of deleting it.
hi. my recent request for losethegame.com to be unblacklisted was declined because you said that the site owner has been spamming links to his site for over 2 years. the admin who declined it suggested i look at whitelisting for specific purposes but before i do that, would it be possible for you to point me to evidence of this spamming (links to diffs?) as it isn't mentioned in the reason for blacklisting. thanks Jessi1989 (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok, i had a look through his contributions. in february 06 he added his website link to 14 vaguely related articles. although most of his edits are clearly unsuitable for wikipedia, it's not completely random spamming, it looks as if he thinks he's making suitable contributions at least some of the time. obviously i'm not condoning his edits but i wouldn't desbribe them as a "history going back to 2006 of spamming his site to wikipedia". those contribs just show that he did some very minor spamming for a few weeks in 2006. has he been spamming regularly with another account since then? when exactly was the site blacklisted? Jessi1989 (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i looked back through the history and found the diff. it was blacklisted in october last year, not several years ago. so are you claiming that this site was blacklisted in october 2007 for 14 edits that were made by a user that stopped editing in feb 06, over 18 months prior to the blacklisting? are you sure you're not confusing this with another site? Jessi1989 (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I don't remember the exact date, and don't see why the date is important. The site clearly does not meet WP:EL guidelines, and thus will not be whitelisted. I have nothing further to say about it. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
surely my previous post makes it obvious why the date is important. you stated that it has been blacklisted "for several years" and that you couldn't be bothered to determine the exact date. i could be bothered and i found your "several years" statement to be completely false (or at least vastly exaggerated). from what little evidence you have provided, jonty303's spamming clearly wasn't the reason for blacklisting as it was blacklisted 18 months after his last edit. according to the blacklisting guidelines, he should have been blocked first, and if that didn't help it should only have been blacklisted on wikipedia, not the whole of wikimedia. the admin who blacklisted the site states the reason as "encouraging vandalism" and links to a page which doesn't mention wikipedia at all. in response to your second point, i wanted to use the link in a reference not an external link, and since when is not meeting wp:el guidelines reason for a site to be blacklisted? i'm sorry, but you came along to the request for unblacklisting and told the closing admin that this site had been spammed repeatedly since 2006. the admin apparently took your word for this because he declined it per your comment. now you appear unable, or unwilling, to provide any diffs supporting your statement. i can't understand why you are arguing so strongly for this site to remain blacklisted when there seems to be very little reason for it to be blacklisted at all. Jessi1989 (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Copyrighted" images
The images I created, are not photographs. They were created using skill, concentration and time, layer by layer on a vector image creator called Inkscape. Because they are of high quality doesn't mean they are copyright violations and are simply done on photoshop. I would appreciate if you undo the deletion requests. Just because you don't see well created vector images everyday, doesn't mean when you see one it is a fake.--LBelle (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe you. It's obvious to me that you took professional porn shots and ran them through a "oil painting" filter in Photoshop or Paint.Net. I will not remove the deletion requests. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohnoitsjamie. The inclusion of The National Christmas Tree Association (NCTA) requires that non members of this PAID group must also be included. NCTA farms must PAY $200+ to be a member and get their tree farm listed. The Christmas Tree Farm Network (CTFN) is for those tree farms that believe that finding a Christmas tree is important public information without paying those very high membership fees.
There are over 600 Real Christmas Tree Farms listed on the CTFN (you deleted) in nearly all 50 states and fewer farmers are on the NCTA web site.
I have no problem with both sites being removed or both should be listed. It has nothing to do with SEO pagerank but fairness to the smaller Christmas tree farms.Aanrwebmaster (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because I did not provide a source I have become a Vandal. Very well then, I will repost my addition and provide a source. A factual scientific source. Do you have any valid argument against this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetodid (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lets do this together, to make sure it gets done right.
Here are my sources;http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070718140829.htm, http://www.salon.com/april97/tiger970430.html
Here is my addition; Controversy, The lineage of every human can be traced back to Africa <ref1>. Currently African Americans are either included or excluded due to the color of their skin. This group also uses known racist policies like the one-drop rule to fill their ranks. Examples of individuals being used (sometimes against their will <ref2>) are Tony Dungy, Barack Obama and Tiger Woods. Have I met the expectations of Wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetodid (talk • contribs) 19:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wetodid, your claim re actually all humans have African roots is original research in the context of the AA article. You then claim that AAs as a group (of 12 odd million individuals defined by their race) use racist policies. That is both deeply insulting and also original research. Thanks, SqueakBox19:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You came out of left field with that. People with black skin (ie the 12 odd million Americans you refer to) are still black. I have not said a single negative word against being black. I am only giving context to the term AA. Which is just as bad as German American, Italian American, English American etc.. You dont seem to understand what the term original research means. The opening statement in the AA article says "who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa." My supposed original research addresses only the defining statement of this AA group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetodid (talk • contribs) 19:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you have accused all black Americans of being racist in your previous post here at this page. I understand original research within the context of the wikipedia policy WP:OR perfectly well. Your claim that white people have origins in the current populations of Africa is clearly not true. Thanks, SqueakBox19:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest squeakbox I am a bit confused at your ignorance. All humans are racist. It is an instinct. It is a biological survival tactic, which is very successful. My posts have clearly addressed the racist tendancies of the group titled African Americans. Additionally I clearly separated "black people" from the sub group of "African Americans".
Your statement shows you did not even check my reference. You are incorrect and acting intentionally disruptive. Please stop.
Unless my facts are to be disputed or my post to be considered not neutral we are done here. I am asking for your assistance to get this done right. I am not trolling. I am not picking a fight. Please provide assistance or point me to someone willing to do their job. Thank you. Wetodid
I have received no evidence that my facts and references are incorrect.
I have received no evidence that my article is not neutral.
I will again try to include my additions.
Wetodid
==DELETED?==
I would like to include how bamboo can be used in constructing bike frames as well as an updated picture of a bicycle frame built out of bamboo under the three sections of relevance (bamboo, bicycle, bicycle frame). Why was my submission deleted ? I apologize for improper submission... How do I put it on the section so it will be included in the entries will not be deleted ? Bamboo is really an amazing plant and I really want people to know it . Thanks for your help with this and Take Care :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teslatesla (talk • contribs) 04:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you deleted the external link to BadBedBugs.com?
I have a ton of valuable information including 100's of comments from people around the world that not only share their stories but support those dealing with the same problem.
Can you be more specific? Can you provide examples so that I understand exactly why it is you feel this is not a valuable contribution to the free encyclopedia?
The word mortgage has a Latin background pointing to its true biblical origins even before AD. While I disagree of the assessment of the source of the link why remove the content as well?
Also the whole mortgage page is very rough conceptually with its subheadings but I am now too afraid to touch it... just in case my motives are misinterpreted. I think I will give wikipedia project a pass as it doesn't seem to honor facts. I would appreciate some advice for a new discouraged user. Its late here goodnight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3dProwler (talk • contribs) 17:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The version was the one worked for long. Adronorsic is blanking the article. His changes should be considered as major changes and should be discussed. This version is discussed thoroughly in archives he archived for purpose. Please see the archives and my comments here [2]. Mastercasper (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced your decline to User:Rockyobody with one that is both informative and civil. There was no reason for that. The guy is obviously having some kind of issue and there's no reason why we can't actually help him figure it out in a way that is not condescending. Trusilver23:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created a new page for split loan which did not exist in wikipedia and for a bit of pride and honor I referenced my page. There is no google Page Rank benefit and all I wanted is some recognition. This editor robbed me of my honor and removed the source link of the definition written in wikipedia. This is dishonest and legalistic as this editor does not look at the content and quality of contribution but is arrogant in his position of having done more edits on here. My definition is still there but I am not given any honor? Is this fair? Wikipedia will not last the test of time with such editors as quality contributions are not encouraged. I am strongly discouraged by wikipedia after this experience and would like to know how do I get a say and complain against this editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3dProwler (talk • contribs) 12:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm (another time) here for the website about Park Güell. After our talk about the website, I added more information. And I didn't say anything to you because the problems were the ads of Google.
But this weekend I thought that I won't never get rich by this website, so I thought, what’s better, to earn nothing (money), or to share the website that I made for the "Treball de recerca" (a work of two years for the school). So I decided to erase the Google ads.
So if you want, you can visit the website, and if you thing that it's useful for the Wikipedia, ask to someone that has participated to make the Park Güell article, if he thing that is useful.
Then if you thing that it's not good enough to be in Wikipedia say it to me, I won't ask you anymore (exempt you say, please if you add more information about...). If you don't understand anything think that this is not my language.
Whow, really fast, ok so I can see that yo havent look the website, but... (worse to wikipeida, to have these type of administrators) Bye--RobCatalà (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
stop erasing my links on the c-walk article. They have been there for over two years (close to three years now). They follow all wiki link guidelines. Please contact me explaining why you think they should be removed. DanceOrigin is a well respected and established dance studio in both the UK and US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.152.109 (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not honor the link please delete the page all together
Since you deleted the source link please delete PAYG Lo-Doc page all together.
Since no honor is given for my work please delete the page with the definition all together which have been taken from my page. You can not have it both ways.
I finally decided to withdraw from the use of wikipedia after this bully experience and do not wish to create more work for your wikipedia. When work content is not honored there is no future with bullies that name themselves after their pet hate not considering the content by dishonoring the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3dProwler (talk • contribs) 01:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohnoitsjamie. Sorry, but I didn't spot your edit to those new pictures at Cydonia Mensae, so it looks like I've just ridden roughshod over you. Sorry about that. Anyway, thanks for correctly re-captioning them - pyramids my arse! ;-) Cheers, --PLUMBAGO16:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; you did make a valid point that the images are lacking a source. Since they will probably be deleted anyway, I went ahead and removed them. If a source is provided, we could revisit whether or not they add anything to the article. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the final "pyramid" one was just about worth retaining since it beautifully illustrates just how far it is from being a pyramid (not the intention of the editor who added it, I'm sure), but you're right - they'll probably wind up being deleted (one's actually a duplicate of an existing image amongst other things). Cheers, --PLUMBAGO16:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary for your revertion says nothing, what is the reason for deletion? Personal feelings or some reasonable wikipedia rule?
" 20:20, 27 November 2008 Ohnoitsjamie (Talk | contribs) m (24,039 bytes) (Reverted edits by Lyckey (talk) to last version by Ohnoitsjamie) (undo) " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyckey (talk • contribs)
Answer re Loki
You complained about my being inaccurate re refs. To be exact, I removed a sentence or two which was criticised as being original research. I then added in some refs/sentences as well. See Raw Foodism Wikipedia page recent discussions for clarification of what some contributors have viewed as being original research. The text I removed was my own, by the way, which should be fine, though I should have made that clear.Loki0115 (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ohnoitsjamie: (Again, hoping I'm doing this right...) Just wanted to thank you for unblocking me, I really do appreciate it. I'm still reading and mostly lost, however, and I was wondering if there are consultants that I could offer to pay for an hour of their time on the phone related to the whole Wikipedia movement. I really like and respect what you and everyone else involved is doing; it's really quite amazing. I come from academia, and probably have a lot to contribute, but I'm not sure and would certainly benefit from being able to speak with someone the old fashioned way. Any thoughts? Mandelman (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me yet again. I just found the link about adoption and have put the proper text at the top of my page... I think. Sorry to bug you unnecessarily. Mandelman (talk) 07:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)But, why is my text in thest messages coming out bold on your talk page? Mandelman (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia work is all volunteer; you shouldn't have to pay anyone for anything. Do you have any specific or general questions? Your text is coming out bold because you're putting 3 single quote marks before it, which is what wiki-markup uses for bolding (surrounding text with two single quotes will make the text italics.) OhNoitsJamieTalk15:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Travel
Ohnoitsjamie, if you want to revert, please give reasons beyond 'does not belong in article'. Are you basing your reversion on any established set of ideas about travel? Do you have any familiarity with the literature in this field? 86.139.108.172 (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie. I've done some edits over the years, but this is my first time writing so much content. I'm not trying to promote anything here. Please tell me what you would do to this to make it compliant.
Please also explain how a reference to a product as with the iPhone, with it's large photo, on this very same article is allowed and not promotion.
Also explain why using a published book on the exactly the subject of this article, gadgets, is not allowed.
Further, thousands of Wikipedia articles cite commercial products and books now. How is this different?
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafgreen (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts to keep Wikipedia spam free, but...What?!? You are wrong. I am not Steve Greenberg, I did not write Gadget Nation, and I do not work for the book nor the publisher nor anything related. "Multiple articles"? That's inaccurate too. I see one other article containing Gadget Nation. See [3]. Please retract your false, baseless accusations. Also answer the four other questions you ignored, since they are relevant. You see, I am also trying to learn to prevent additional editor time, and am asking once again for a little help in that regard.
I don't have any proof you're the author; it was a guess based on your username. I'll take your word for it that you're not the author. In any case, the Gadget article is a frequent spam target, and Wikipedia is not the place to promote a book. Your addition sounded like an advertisement for the book, and I note that the editor (Stevetv (talk·contribs·logs) who added the link to Flash of Genius (film) appears to be a single purpose account. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I get it: the "green" in "Leafgreen" proves that I am the same as Steve Greenberg. That assumption is a blantantly irresponsible leap to a false conclusion! You broke the assume good faith rule. You shot first and then waited for the wounded man to ask questions. According to your method of reason, you are a murderer since you share the same name as Jessie James.
Further, Your lack of use of any evidence other than some fallacious assumption has no place here. Such is no different than the thing you are given to police. Further, you should have also looked up my contribution history and seen that I have only made minor edits, but no subtantial content, and you bit me.
For the third time, I'm asking you to address the "central points" [4] of our disagreement. Why do you continually avoid them? (Refer to my four questions.) Here's the fifth question: The content I wrote cites an external, respected source of information about gadgets. In direct rebuttal to your statement, "Your addition sounded like an advertisement for the book," how is it any more than citation of an external source? How is it different than citing a book written by Donald Trump's Art of a Deal in a real estate article? Nothing, and my contribution was compliant with reliable sources. Please reinstate the content I wrote. Otherwise, I shall begin dispute resolution. And, you don't have a very strong case.
Normally I wouldn't have spent the three hours of my Sunday on this, but justice must be served.
I apologize for erroneously assuming you were the author. However, I'm not going to spend much time defending the deletion of promotional material. If simply added the book with ISBN to a "Selected Reading" section, I probably wouldn't have thought anything of it. The content you added sounds like an advert for the book, with 3 links to the author's site (one in the reference, and two in the External links section, including one to his "gadget store"). Trump has significantly more notability than Greenberg, so it's pointless making a comparison (though if someone posted a passage sourced by Trump and included a link to a Trump "storefront," I'd object to that as well). Regarding the content itself, I don't think everyone would agree that America is unique in it's thirst for gadgets (i.e. Japan). A more appropriate approach would be something to the effect of "Author Steven Greenberg argues that gadgets are primarily an American phenomenon..." and then use the standard {{cite book}} tag. Phrases like "Archetypal garage inventors from across America enjoy the struggle to come up with the next must-have gadget, and in doing so reach for the American dream" do not have the appropriate tone for an encyclopedia. OhNoitsJamieTalk05:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and appreciate your long awaited, belated suggestions for a revision. I'll work on it soon. I'd like to write it first and then get an editor's feedback. How should I do that, or should I just post it and then see what happens? The latter doesn't seem correct, in light of the ridiculously inefficient contribution editing process in which you and I have been involved.
Hi. I saw that you'd removed a source link for the birthdate of Drew Barrymore here. I'm not sure how that webpage qualifies as spam. It's a brief biography of Barrymore and doesn't appear to be selling anything. In the past, Who's Who in America? was a well-known entity. Could you fill me in on why the page is spam? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You recently edited the Humboldt State University article section on notable people, removing individuals who did not have associated articles. May I ask what the criteria you used in determining their notability were?
Thanks for the response. Did you look at the articles? Many of them have no references beyond personal webpages; some have no references at all. Other Wikipedia articles do not qualify as reliable sources, as far as I know, so either all the unreferenced individuals should be removed (which would be a shame) or they should all be given time for referencing (preferable, IMHO, as long as someone is willing/able to find references).
I'd like to revert your edit in fairness to the people without articles. Simultaneously, I'll add a note to the article's talk page requesting references for the individuals in question -- both the ones with articles and the ones without. How does that sound to you?
I'd suggest that you not do a complete revert. Some of those individuals may meet notability guidelines, though I doubt most of them do (especially the deleted entries from the faculty section; see WP:PROF for more info on academic notability). If you can find third-party reliable sources indicating notability, then feel free to re-add such subjects. An easy way to find reliable sources is via a Google news search (or similar search with your favorite search engine). OhNoitsJamieTalk06:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use HosurOnline.Com's content in your articles
Warning:
It seems you wiki admin are using contents from HosurOnline.Com. If you think the contents that you have pasted is of your own discovery or invention, then provide proper reference and use it. Don't steal and declare as if the contents are of your own.
I am not interested in editing anything, but not interested to allow wiki to have my website contents without proper credits. If you use then mention you have stolen the contents from HosurOnline.Com with guts.
A Soosai Prakash (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then where did you researched the content and pasted it? Feel ashamed for giving such excuse. You are free to block my account but you are not authorized to steal my contents. A Soosai Prakash (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Warning To Admins - Plagiarism and Copyright Infringement
I read on a forum how a wikipedia admin exact copied a portion of an article from a website and listed the website in the references. Another standard user later removed the reference link and called it spam. Several other editors as well as guests attempted to put the link back and undo the changes. I tried as well and got a spam warning from Ohnoitsjamie. Now the website owner has claimed that they are filing a copyright infringement lawsuit against Wikipedia because they won't allow anyone to remove the content nor allow anyone to place the reference link back where it belongs. I see from your comments that you've accustomed yourself to committing plagiarism and have probably done a lot more than has been complained about. From several people's research there are groups of lawyers all over the country readying massive lawsuits against Wikipedia because of yours and other admins' behavior. I don't know what you call it when you steal other people's content for your own benefit and profit and without giving credit where it's due but I call it SPAM. Just a warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.72.38 (talk • contribs)
LOL 68.118.72.38, before you threaten "lawyers all over the country readying massive lawsuits", I'd recommend a look at the "Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act", maybe then you'll realize how laughable you sound. Have your lawyer send a proper takedown notice if you're really the copyright owner. Which I highly doubt as you're referring to a quote which you claim is from your affiliate marketing site but is a) nowhere to be found there and b) of another third-party journal. If anything that journal author is the copyright holder and could file claims, not your affiliate marketing site. Wikipedia is not a vehicle to deliver customers to your business.
BTW, as to "you steal other people's content for your own benefit and profit", please explain the profit part. All I see is that they have to beg for donations to keep the place running and a big, fat "Wikipedia is a non-profit project" currently right on top of every page.
you recently said i was breakin copy right laws with my information on mediaeverwhere but i work for them and was asked by them to add there details to here
please may i now add basic details of this high classed company that by far deserves to be added to this encyclopedia as much as any highly regarded comapny like google and many others —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draillits (talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple external ref for Lokah. In addition the band features Sting, Russell Simmons, and Sky Cries Mary on their album, also they are the first band to fuse ancient indian kirtan and pop in a large scale prodcution. Why the deletion?
Can you tell me why this http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Class_in_the_UK page has been deleted? Its aim is to direct readers to the UK govenrment website on this issue, which is THE authorative source for the UK. This page serves an important purpose that other related pages, euch as http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Social_class do NOT DO. I am going to add 'related links' to these pages, but I don't want to waste time doing so until I know this page is 'safe'.
I agree, but that is precisely why external links exist. There is nothing wrong in linking to recipes. More links to good information helps readers. One reason for external links is "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." I think representative recipes that provide sufficient evidence that they are authentic qualify. I also do not like the fact that you cleared External Links from the Mapo doufu article without posting to the discussion page. In short, there is no need to be an external link nazi here. If an External Link is spamming or self-promoting on Wikipedia, that is detrimental to the mission of both Wikipedia and the internet and should be deleted. On the other hand, links such as well-backed authentic (i.e. not home-made inventions) recipe links that provide more insight into the very topic the article is discussing is more than helpful for the reader, helping promote the mission of Wikipedia, and making the internet a friendlier place with good information. These sorts of links should not be deleted. When something isn't doing damage, please don't blank it. Thanks. And no, none of those links were mine, before you freak out and accuse me of self-promotion like every other external link nazi on Wikipedia does to people. Please evaluate whether or not the link provides valuable information. There's a clear distinction between a site trying to sell something and gaining rank via wikipedia and a site that was added by Wikipedians because it is relevant to the article and enhances its meaning. 18.138.1.34 (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't edited the article you said i vandalised
Hello, not sure if you made a mistake or not but the page you said i "vandalised", I did not even visit, must be some mistake. It was apperently about a "LeBron James", never heard of him, never visited the page....i wouldn't even know how to edit a page if i wanted to....don't even know if i'm posting this in the right place...pleae explain
Sniper Zed (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Atlantic Cat was deleted in error. I began this article, and you deleted it before I could get very far with it. There are several other articles for Caterpillar Dealerships, such as Finning and WesTrac. Brycecronkleton (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't have a double standard for some company articles. Caterpillar dealerships are frequently billion-dollar a year businesses, and that alone should be enough to pass the notable hurdle. Brycecronkleton (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jamie: I found that the "Marie Diamond" page I added today has been "speedy deleted". I would appreciate knowing how Marie meets your criteria for "non-notability"...it seems there are other folks with bios in Wikipedia who have contributed less to society at large.
My intention was to add further citations of books and movies Marie has contributed to, but you have made this a little tough by deleting the article...I will have to start from scratch, and face greater critical scrutiny if I simply attempt to re-post a deleted article. I would prefer that you consider undeleting the page instead, so I can add to it.
See WP:BIO for out policies on notability. The article you created had no non-trivial, third-party reliable sources to indicate how the subject meets our notability criteria. If you can show me a few such references, I'd considered restoring the article. OhNoitsJamieTalk04:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Norton Reference Deleted
Why doesn't the reference directly support it? Jim Norton is a comic with some notority, who has a maintained Wikipedia page, that lists George Carlin as one of his influences on that page. It seems to be that if the Jim Norton page says that he was influenced by Carlin, and if Carlin's page lists comics that he influenced, and none of the above are indispute, then the reference is supported? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SJrX10 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jamie,
I am curious as to why my information on micromoles in the Acai Fruit has been deleted. The information on the website that was referenced did site the original source which has yet to be found online. Please let me know what I can do so that I can continiue to be a contributing person to Wikipedia.
Thank you,
Kris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itskris84 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. "My site" is not "my site".
2. Why is citing a source an "advertising venue"?
2. I've never added that site before, or any sites for that matter. I am really confused as to why it was deleted. How does Wikipedia expect people to contribute if when they do they get their contribution removed?
Jamie,
I am not here to add links for advertisement. Again that site I cited wasn't mine. Will you allow me to post the information without citing the source? I have no problem not adding the source. I just thought that if I found information online that I felt could contribute to a topic then I should cite where I got the information from. Please let me know so I can add the content back into the topic. Again... I have no need to cite the source I just thought thats what needed to happen on Wikipedia.
Kris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itskris84 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jamie, I do not think Mr. Emanuel's potential role is a matter of dispute; he is named in the original, un-redacted draft of the affidavit. If you have not read the unsealed affidavit, you may find a link to it here: http://llnw.static.cbslocal.com/station/national/docs/2008/12/complaintcoverandaff.pdf After you have done so, you will find that all of the information contained in my post comes from either the affidavit itself or from information found elsewhere on Wikipedia (e.g., w.r.t. Senate Candidate 1). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.222.230 (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The text is still not appropriate. First of all, per undue weight policy, you're trying to add a large body of text that is mostly about the Blagojevich. The fact that you're calling it "potential involvement" suggests WP:OR. At most, it might be appropriate to mention that Emmanual was referenced in the complaint, but even that should be proposed on the talk page. If Emmanual is formally charged, then it would be appropriate to have a section devoted to the matter. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree the information is "mostly" about Blagojevich. The 76-page affidavit is "mostly" about Blagojevich whereas the brief information I posted from the affidavit is either recorded conversations SPECIFIC to Emanuel or contextual information specific to the references to Emanuel. I will go along with your interpretation that "potential involvement" (while correct) may cause people to draw an incorrect inference, so I would propose changing the heading of the section (not deleting the section itself). How about "Blagojevich/Harris affidavit references to Emanuel"? (I disagree that "potential involvement" implies OR...the OR was done by the F.B.I., not me, and is publicly available information.) I also disagree that Emanuel must be charged to make this worthy of inclusion on his page. The affidavit makes clear that Emanuel communicated via emissaries with the Blagojevich camp. Obama said earlier this morning that he will make public the dates/times and content of those conversations "within the next few days". Based on Blagojevich's "unmentionable" (Obama's words) comments about Obama and his administration (as found in the affidavit) it would seems that Mr. Emanuel DID NOT entertain Blagojevich's pay-to-play proposals (and since that is speculation it wasn't contained or alluded to in my post). Therefore, what *IS* noteworthy about Emanuel's role in these conversations appears to be that he WAS aware of the pay-to-play intentions of Blagojevich, but (apparently?) didn't inform President-elect Obama or law enforcement that Blagojevich's people were engaging in an illegal scheme to strong-arm both Emanuel and the Obama administration. Regardless of whether Emanuel is charged (almost certainly he WON'T be), this is significant.
I'm not saying that we can't include anything about it until he's charged; I just think the section was much too large this early in the proceedings. Furthermore, WP:BLP policy is one of the most strictly enforced (and contested) policies here; given that, I think the best course of action is to propose the content you'd like to add to the talk page first to get some more input as to the wording. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree to disagree with you whether the length of the section is commensurate with the stage of the proceedings and also agree to move the content to the talk page.
The most important thing is that when potentially controversial material is added to bios of living people, we have to be especially careful. I appreciate your cooperation, and I'm sure others will chime in with suggestions on how to best incorporate the material. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added the link to Wikiquote, but I'm wondering that since we're both involved in the content discussion whether a WP:WQA might be advisable; this editor's behaviour isn't a new phenomenon, hit attitude goes way back to February. --Rodhullandemu19:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you went ahead and removed the edit to the article without checking out the talk page. I proposed the change days ago and no one opposed. wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a complaint forum. Most of what I removed had no bearing/effect on the company, and is not newsworthy relative to the other "happenings" of the company. The one point which was known to have been serious criticism was moved to the firm's history. The rest is not worthy of being in the article. Please consider reverting your reversion :) 139.147.81.231 (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at it again. I'd like to just get rid of the section title and integrate the criticism which you left into the firm's history. I feel like leaving the "criticism" title up just invites people to add grievances, no matter how irrelevant they may be to the article 139.147.81.231 (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Limp Bizkit
You erased all the news about the band.why? and could you talk it on discussion page before erasing or at least explane the reason in Edit Summery please? Cause it's very confusing when you go visit a page and one part is erased and you dont even know the reason!Solino the Wolf (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.I myself had told this once in its talk page asking till when this weekly updates should be brought to the article.but I think explaning in talk page before doing a big change in the article,or at least mentioning the reason is apropriate.Anyways,I agree,It's better this way.Solino the Wolf (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can still use the diffs from the old version if there is anything salvageable or important that can be re-included. Normally I would go to the talk page first before making a big change, but in this case, it was such a mess that I decided to be bold. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk23:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sorry about earlier, i kinda-sorta acted a little bit off. just wanting to let u know it won't happen again :)
Beauty
Please see my comments in the Object and Subject section of the discussion before reverting. The point is valid and grammatically correct. I changed the phrase "object of beauty" to "subject of beauty" in the introduction because the paragraph in question regards subjective experiences and interpretations of beauty. The philosophy term "subject" is more appropriate here, as it deals with a thing inside of the mind. In order for the term "object" to be more appropriate, the paragraph would need to define the thing as beautiful outside of the person's mind, which the paragraph clearly does not do. Please do not change this without proper argumentation.
Please do not edit war. I proposed this change well over a week ago, and no one opposed this or responded to it. BennyQuixote (talk)
You keep changing the date of her second marriage to December 27, 1877 when it is in fact December 27, 1874. My reference is "Carry Nation" by Fran Grace, page 55: "Carry Gloyd and David Nation had known each other for several years before they married in December 1874."
Hmmm....tough call. Might be worth mentioning in the article that some sources say 1874 and some say 1877, as Encarta and the UM site would both meet reliable sources guidelines. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you start blocking IPs, then for sure no one at one stage will be able to edit pages. Just Note in your mind that IPs are most of the time dynamic and someone who may be really interested to contribute may loose the interest due to blocking. Most of the people do not understard you have blocked the IP! The work commitment of yours is really good but you should also be wise to work in a group environment. Learning is a process and there is nothing wrong accepting advises. Instead of speading lots of time keeping dogs away from wiki concentrate more time on learning process on new technologies! Just think twice "Why should I spend time chasing dogs who are never going to change their attitude?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.50.195 (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice speech, but I have no qualms with blocking every IP you use until you stop the disruptive edits. Constructive users can get around the IP blocks by creating accounts. I'm also prepared to have your site blacklisted on all Wikis, not just English. If you stop now, I'll drop it. OhNoitsJamieTalk01:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested to know an RfC is in progress regarding this user's conduct at [5] which is coming close to its end. This edit regarding the United States has been added as it is POV and technically racist. Feel free to sign it. chocobogamermine19:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, I reported an editor for suspected sock puppetry. I am contacting those editors who may have had some unfortunate dealings with this guy. In your case it was with his puppets. Specifically NewYork483, whom you have warned on numerous occasions[6], and his other puppet, Baseballfan789, in the AfD on Joe the Plumber where he attempts to mitigate your comment.[7] The purpose in message is only to make you aware of the case. If you would like to review what I have written you can find it here.[8]
On a slightly different note, you may want to check out the puppet master’s repeated vandalism of VASJ.[9][10][11], and one from his puppet.[12]
I am struggling with all the navigation fundamentals. But your sarcasm i can understand and appreciate enun though its a little subtle. So maybe if you throw a little help my way I could check my shelves for parts you may need for your Chevy since I own a salvage yard.--Manchvegassalvage (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accident or arguments?
"(cur) (last) 15:08, 23 December 2008 Ohnoitsjamie(Talk | contribs) (52,812 bytes) (sports teams frequently do this; we don't need to mention every instance) (undo)"
High "sucker",
You recently not only reverted the former edit about a sportsteam collectively growing beards, but together with that a lot of names, that recently have been added to the section famous persons.
Maybe you did that accidently, but in case you didn't, there must be an argumentation. Could you please tell more about it? VKing (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unfamiliar with the subject as well; I was only helping out where there was obvious mischief afoot (and now I've watchlisted it). He continues to IP hop but I've been just reverting (and now have an open checkuser request). Thanks again —Hello, ControlHello, Tony22:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's already been a [about it]. This is the second time I've seen a single user add it to multiple articles. If I see it crop up again, I'm sending it to the blacklist. There are plenty of better sources available for such information. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted a legitimate discussion with links, and you're refusing to edit collaboratively. Your deletion was inappropriate. Please restore the cite for the multiple reasons I cited that you deleted, presumably without even reading, since you've had absolutely no justification for the deletion of material that *I* added. I don't work for Towers Perrin. THF (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted my comments on your talk page, so why are you concerned about me doing the same thing? I didn't say you worked for Towers Perrin. I'm asking you to not restore contributions from single-purpose-account spammers. If you can get consensus from a few other experienced editors that the content should be re-added, I'll leave it be. Otherwise, please do not add it again. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is why it's pointless to edit Wikipedia -- too many editors like you who fight for the sake of fighting without any regard for accuracy of content, and you want me to waste lots of time lobbying over a trivial addition, and threaten me without any basis for trying to improve the article. Fine, let the article stay crappy, and omit the leading statistic on the subject. THF (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just declined the A7 deletion of Randall Svane with a comment that I would add sources momentarily because a Google news search found appropriate sources for him. Was your subsequent A7 deletion an edit conflict or did you not look at the history when you deleted it? In any case, I have undeleted and added the sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please give me some information on the user below and state for my enlightenment the authority wherewith he threatens good faith editing. IMHO, he has taken "ownership" of the Christmas template. I have scanned his history and it appears he has demonstrated an abusive "tough guy" approach to other WP editors. The "Official Warning" below appears to be a "cut and paste" job with some minor editing to suit the situation. Please clarify. Thanks! ReverendLogos (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit] Official warning
Please stop. If you continue to add the Baby Jesus theft link to the Template:Christmas without discussion you will be blocked for not following code and for vandalism. You also are to discuss any new additions before you add them to the template as of now due to past lack of recognition of WP:Policy. This is not a punishment, but action against what appears to be aggravated vandalism. If you stay on the template long enough and continue the way I have explained I will lift your warning, if you do not follow instruction you will be blocked from editing. Thank you, and one more thing don't threaten someone with more authority then you ever again :). --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
You may want to give him a real link to me, maybe User:EveryDayJoe45 will work for you... On another note no matter who you try to convince its not going to work. When your met with disagreement upon an already set page, you must take it tot the discussion. Therefore my friend you lose, and I told you that several times and you didn't listen so you got a warning, and as I said do it again and your vandalism (even if it is built upon good faith) will have to be punished. And this is directed at ReverendLoos not you Ohnoitsjamie. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Encouraging use of the talk page is always good, though using taunting language like "therefore my friend you lose" is probably not helpful. Many of us are guilty of letting our emotions slip into our edits from time to time; let's try to keep the tone more civil and neutral. Both of you have made a lot of useful contributions, and I'm hoping you'll both continue to do so; let's try to bury the hatchet and move foreward. Thanks, OhNoitsJamieTalk20:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually bother to check references that you delete ?
We maintain one of the world's most comprehensive website for worldwide public holidays (no names) and many large corporations spend a lot of money licensing data from us. This afternoon while browsing, I felt sorry for the glaring errors on the wikipedia page for "list of holidays by country" and spent an hour of my time fixing a few of the errors with links to pages on our website that describe the changes that occured and give references to our sources.
I was astounded to receive a curt messsage a bit later telling ma all the corrections I made were canceled. I don't mean only that my links were removed, but THE EDITOR WENT THROUGH THE TROUBLE OF RE-INSERTING THE ERRORS WHICH I HAD CORRECTED !!! If you had at least bothered to follow the URLs I supplied you would have kept the corrections I made even if you wanted to remove the URLs.
This kind of shoddy editorship (knowingly re-inserting erroneous information) will make me deeply suspicious of anything I find on Wikipedia in the future.
Wikipedia might very well have plenty of helpful editors, but they obviously never go anywhere near your "list of holidays by country" page which is missing more than half the countries of the world and is riddled with out-of-date information. As for our site being commercial, that may be the case but if you had bothered to check the supplied URLs, you would have seen that our "evil" commercial site does contain, free and for all to see, the entire up-to-date list of worldwide public holidays for 2009, for each and every country of the world, which is more than can be said for your aforementioned page I foolishly tried to improve. FYI: you can throw all the editors you want at that page and you will still not get it anywhere near right; there are about 5-6 people in the world able to clean-up that page, and all of them have to work for a living (ie. they also have evil commercial sites). --Olivier Beltrami (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thnaks for the suggestions. I had read the COI section, but understood that as long as the links pointed to non-controversial, relevant, useful and free information it could point to a commercial site (as if the chief engineer at Boeing linked to some Boeing web pages to illustrate some point he was making). The SPA, though, I had not seen, and seems best suited to what my contributions to Wikipedia could be; worldwide public holidays. Reading the page on SPA, though I could not figure out how to mark my account as such ?--Olivier Beltrami (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By single-purpose, I meant with the single purpose of adding links to a website that sells software. The Boeing example is a bit apples to oranges, as Boeing is a highly notable company. That said, if a user started canvasing links to Boeing on nearly every aviation-related article, that would be equally inappropriate, regardless of the user's affiliation with Boeing. Though academic links are usually appropriate, we would discourage a user from canvasing links to a single institution for the same reason. Furthermore, the information that your site provide is nearly always available from other sources (such as government pages). OhNoitsJamieTalk20:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One comment before I abort my attempts at shring my expertise. You have no idea how wrong you are when you write "the information that your site provide is nearly always available from other sources (such as government pages)". First of all, only about 30-40 countries have, as of today, published their 2009 public holidays lists. Second, half of these postings are incorrect with moveable dates (such as Easter) still showing last year's date. Our expertise is being able to discover the public holidays of the other 200+ countries and semi-autonomous territories. You don't believe me, try getting the list of official 2009 public holidays for Russia (I'm being nice and not suggesting Bhutan or Tuvalu). Finally, if I had put links to newspaper articles in my edits the landing URLs would have had tons of popups and ads, but you will not find any popups or ads on our website. Best regards, --Olivier Beltrami (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could suggest the link on the Talk:List_of_holidays_by_country page, though in fairness you should note that it is a commercial site that sells products. If you can get a [{WP:Consensus|consensus]] opinion that it would be appropriate for that page, I wouldn't object further to its inclusion. However, you should avoid canvasing it on other pages. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate
This warning is completely inappropriate when we have been having a small disagreement over whether to include a sentence. You are acting as if I have been vandalising Wikipedia. I have been perfectly reasonable and I would expect you to engage me in a reasonable way,
rather than threatening to block me. Mister Lady (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find your comments very aggressive, and I feel that threatening to block me in a misuse of your powers. As you do not seem prepared to discuss this without threats and demands, I have raised my concerns here. Mister Lady (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hi Jamie, new, aspiring editor on wikipedia and I'm sorry that i violated the guidelines on "ad exchange." I added the link about Microsoft acquiring AdECN which is one of the major exchanges in advertising. How might I better add this? Also, there was another link from imedia connections which i did not add but I think is a great info article. Guess it sounds like i did add it. Anyway... how could i add that back? If neither is good, ah well. thanks for your time. Im sure I didn't add this feedback/question in the right place either. Ipsofacto123 (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. It's good its on the Microsoft page, of course. But I think it's important that it's also on the ad exchange page. My reasoning is that ad exchanges as an advertising model have been adopted by the three key players in online advertising which shows how important this model is and will be. Yahoo bought RightMedia (680 mil). Google bought DoubleClick (with its ad exchange - $3.1 bil). And then Microsoft bought AdECN (unknown $$). From an online ad industry perspective, this is the holy trinity as it were and their seminal influence is important. Thanks for reading. Ipsofacto123 (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Any more thoughts on this Jamie? Obviously, I'm still arguing for inclusion on the ad exchanges page. I think it's notable. Thanks. Ipsofacto123 (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try posting the suggestion to the talk page for that article. If you can find a few third-party news items about it (i.e., not press releases), that would help bolster your notability claim. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie - Took me a while but I finally added the discussion item. Check it out if you get a chance. Like to get your input.
Ipsofacto123 (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Jamie... can we add the adecn link to the ad exchanges page? I opened a discussion. Thanks. Ipsofacto123 (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good argument, though my personal opinion is the techcrunch and NY Times links are sufficient to source the acquisition. Just be aware of WP:UNDUE; i.e., it may be worth mentioning in the Ad Exchange article, but I don't think it should comprise a large part of the article either. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, Jamie. Check it out. I made the change and all I added back was the original link so that it winds up in the reflist. If you want me to use TechCrunch or NY Times, that's fine, too. I like all the info provided on the original link because it leads to more information on key players like doubleclick, right media, etc.
Ipsofacto123 (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accidentilly 'undid' something that had slander from a previous vandal attack. The paragraph I added is true and you didn't give me time nor the opportunity to source it. I was doing so when you blocked me. --216.17.75.89 (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for vandalizing the White People article earlier but I got very upset when I noticed someone vandalized the Black People article and You guys did nothing about it. I had to go in and correct it myself. If you are claiming to ensure the security of other people's work, you should do so in a more impartial manner.
Anyway not knocking the work you are doing but you need to do a slightly better job so that people like myself won't get irate or offended and motivated to vandalize other people's work.
One instance of vandalism does not excuse you from vandalism. Vandalism is added and reverted constantly. It's usually reverted within seconds, but sometimes it takes longer for someone to catch it. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The information was sourced, liberal information nazi's deleted it. If I know how to get it back I would. You can see the old cites on the changed pages, if you care about the information and truth so much and know how to do it, you fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.152.233 (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have deleted this page on the basis of a copyright violation, although I had put a hangon, explained my point in the talk page and heavily edited the page so that when the page was deleted there was no copyright violation anymore. I would appreciate it if you compare the latest version edited by me and the text which is supposed to have its copyright violated, and you will see that there is nothing in common. The text was also sourced, with six sources provided. I kindly ask for the article to be restored.
To be more complete, I indeed did a copyright violation with the original edit of the article. The reason is the following : I took the text from an old NASA Mission to Planet Earth brochure, on the assumption that since it was NASA, it was government work and therefore PD. Unfortunately, the UCLA web site used the very same text on its web site here and therefore the bot detected a copyright violation. Then another user put a speedy. It would be a very interesting discussion to know if a text which was originally in a NASA brochure can be copyrighted, but I did not want to enter into that and I tried to correct the problem by heavily modifying and sourcing the text. Hektor (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate at least an acknowledgement of my post and an answer. Charles Kennel member of the National Academy of Sciences and its space committee chairman is notable and the version of the article you deleted was sourced and without copyvio. I think I have acted in good faith, I recognized I had made a copyvio, although unwittingly, and I have made my best to correct this mistake. Thank you. Hektor (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You denied my request for unblocking due to excess vandalism? If that particular account had a long history of vandalism, then fair enough. But as far as I can tell, there were only two instances. Not exactly fair, is it? I see accounts on here with consistent warnings, blocks etc, yet they remain open. One thing happens to mine, and I'm blocked for who knows how long. Slight case of double standards there, in my opinion. 90.220.37.95 (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I only see two such warnings, and both of those are the 'i' marks, as opposed to the 'x's and final warnings other such accounts receive. How was mine any different? 90.220.37.95 (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo. At last, the comments I was waiting for. There's obviously some other reason why I'm being given the final straw treatment here, and the fact no-one wants to talk about it, let alone help, just proves that. You even threatened to block this IP address because I wanted to talk about it! Sorry, but that's not right. 90.220.37.95 (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cache of Page
Hello, I am new to wikipedia, and I was surprised to find an article I added deleted. There were some friendly points made last week about notability and so on, which I responded to, and revised the article to make it more objective and added ISBN research references to the book publications. I understand you are trying to keep wikipedia to a high standard, but I don't even seem to have a cached copy of the article anywhere. Could you please provide some info on where I can get a cached copy of the article, and a brief explanation as to what I could do to amend the article so it meets the proper standards?
There was no evidence that the subject meets WP:BIO notability criteria. We do not maintain bios of anyone that's written a book or two, especially when the books are self-published or printed by small presses. OhNoitsJamieTalk06:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments about the obesity page. It has been just me editing for so long that I have become a little sloppy. Dell did a good article review a while back. Made a number of comments which I have addressed. He however is to busy to do another. Wondering if you would be interested? I know it still needs a lot of work for featured article, but I think it is a good overview at this point.
Yes just wondering if you could do a good article review as per WP:GA. It explains all the criteria there. I do not think it is up to WP:FA yet. But maybe one day. It is a very large topic. I have split bits and pieces off into other article recently. Help with grammar and prose would be appreciated. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking policy question
Just to help me better understand the blocking policy, could you explain your block posted at User talk:Goatfur which does not seem to comply with the notification policy as I understand it. There was no warning that indicated that continued actions would result in an block, let alone an indefinate block. I would agree that his edit history would justify it had the warning policy been followed. I realize there might be other factors involved, but they are not mentioned, which makes your blocking action seem excessive. Dbiel(Talk)19:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What would happen if someone plopped a photo of hetro sex on a gay page? The answer would be they would be banned. Then why is it that gay photos are allowed on about every damn page that deals with sticking your wang in something? Seems a little bit of an agenda issue to me an a lot of other people.76.177.39.156 (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a superior, GFDL photo that appropriately illustrates the subject, feel free to add it. Until such a photo comes along, the current photo appropriately illustrates the subjects. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but full protection? I understood that blocked user talk page protection needn't extend to other users who want to post a comment. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am misunderstanding something about Wikipedia:PPOL#Talk-page protection, where it says "MediaWiki now supports disabling users editing their own talk pages when blocking.... (And it does not prevent other users from editing the page for typos etc)." This implied there was a way to protect the talk page from that user but not from others like me.
If there is a way to do this, I'm not aware of it. In the protection dialog I get, the choices are "Allow all","Block new and unregistered," and "Block all non-admin."
In any case, I was going to suggest an answer to his question "Are there Muslim administrators?" I wanted to suggest looking through all 383 entries in Category:Muslim Wikipedians to see if any of them are administrators. This led me to wonder, is there a way to search whether a page belongs to multiple categories? Say, Administrators and Muslim Wikipedians? I thought you might know. WikiProjects can sort of do this; for example I can find all WP:WINE related articles that are in the "stub" category. That sort of combines two categories. I wondered if one could do that for any two or more arbitrary categories, without one being a WikiProject. "Muslim Wikipedians" and "Administrators" was one example. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be handy to crawl categories like that, but unfortunately, I don't know if it's possible or not. A Muslim admin isn't going to help him achieve his desired result (removal of the illustrations). The FAQ that was linked already covers that. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk00:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I figured, if he could find a Muslim admin, then he'd listen to that person more readily than a non-Muslim admin, and perhaps gain some enlightenment about the existence of those images. I guess I can propose a category-intersection tool at Village Pump. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Religion of Susquehanna"
Hello,
My name is Randy Robertson. I'm a professor of English at Susquehanna University, and I am teaching a course on the history of media. One of my assignments for the class is that we create our own religion. The point of the exercise is to show students how sacred texts can accrue material over time, some of which is inconsistent with what was there before.
It is also, however, a serious attempt to define the values of the class. As students will be students, the initial comments in the entry will be frivolous, but my hope is that over time it will become more serious, and that as a class we will build a page that will stimulate thoughtful discussion. It was originally titled "Religion of Susquehanna," but because Susquehanna's Board of Trustees might get upset about that, I propose to call the entry "A New SU Religion." I hope that you let this page stand. Many academics are hostile to Wikipedia; I like using it as a learning tool in the new media world, where movements can be created online before they exist in the "real world." If you would like to discuss any aspect of this proposal further, please feel free to contact me at robertson@susqu.edu.
You have yet to convince that the information, though arguably vulgar, is unwarranted in the article: after all, the Mo' Urban Dictionary is published and there are more than 8.5 million Google hits for the term, thereby making it rather notable. Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am well familiar with the policies; it is ironic, almost lame, that you challenge the notability of 'Spocker' herein when 'shocker' is contestable in and of itself in this context. Whatever. Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My Name Is Brother James Gaffney, President of Lewis University. I am a Catholic Brother and was just informed by Michael Scanlon, one of my former students, that this page had been made only to find it deleted. Here at Lewis University we are proud of our Catholic and Lasallian heritage, our commitment to education, and our tradition of excellence in Athletics. Our Rugby team is a shining example of what our students can accomplish with hard work and how one person can make a difference. It is also an extremely important part not only of our school but of our community. I have seen pages for such schools as Harvard for the rugby teams they have, but I see no reason why our page was deleted while their page is kept. We have not the tradition yet, but we will soon, and although we are a Division II school in terms of the majority of our Athletics, we are proud of each team the same nonetheless. Please reconsider adding our page. Thank you and God Bless
Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. The subject doesn't come close to meeting WP:BIO notability standards. Furthermore, I wonder what Brother Gaffney would think if he discovered that students were attempting to impersonate him. Perhaps I should contact him via email to alert him to this message posted on his behalf.OhNoitsJamieTalk22:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WHY?
You deleted my page about the band, for no reason! why? cmon! tell me!
you think its alright?, the warning said that it would be deleted, unless there was something special about the people in the band, and i put what that was, and you still deleted it!, im ashamed of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Sign Post Army (talk • contribs) 22:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have completely rewritten this article and cited all new material to address unref'd concerns. Please review your deletion nomination. • Freechild'sup?09:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those pics Somalis and south indians as "White People"
Heres what they have AS REFERANCE
" Bonnet, Alastair (2000) White Identities: "Nevertheless a much stronger current of scientific research supporters the theory that Europeans were but one expression of a wider racial group (termed sometimes Caucasian, Aryan and white), a group that included peoples from Asia and North Africa... in A Geography of Africa (Lyde 1914) 'The non-European population of Africa belongs mainly to one of two races, the White and the Black' Amongst the whites of African are included 'Arabs and Abysinians... Berbers and Tuaregs, Masai and Somalis'" p. 18"
BTW Somalians are not North African they are east african they are black!
P.S The artical is about "WHITE PEOPLE" it would would be same as adding White peoples pics on Black People artical...seriously <_< Artical is not about Caucasian but "White People" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oct11988duh (talk • contribs) 00:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the text indicates, the photo is their to indicate that their are different schools of thought as to what exactly "white people" means. There's no reason to remove properly sourced info. OhNoitsJamieTalk00:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is giving people information about swimming pools spam? I thought this site was used to help people find information on certain subjects. I guess not. Sorry for trying to help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.166.65 (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
are you saying it's not helpful? Is that not the intent of this site to help people find the information they are looking for? I built my own swimming pool and found that a lot of people wanted the information. Why is that spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.166.65 (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly advise how the addition of KegelCoach to the "Kegel Exercises" page qualifies as advertising outside the acceptable bounds dictated by Wikipedia's own definition of advertising, "Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style." The entry isn't a link, and it doesn't it present any particular point of view. It also does not recommend, critique, nor use superlatives in its presentation. It's written in no more of a promotional manner than are the two products that are allowed, KegelPad and KegelMale. KegelCoach is a legitimate service which, by definition, is appropriate to mention by name alone in a paragraph giving examples of same. Isn't it entitled to the same representation as those products currently allowed? What am I missing? :-) Kindly advise. Thank you for your time, Jamie! Doctorsinclair (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie, are you aware that you've been reverting (accidentally, I'm assuming) to some very old versions with the edit summary "rv forum"? Here you reverted to an Aug 1 2007 version undoing several hundred edits at Hawaii. And here you reverted to a Dec 26 2007 version at El Dorado Hills, California. --MPerel 01:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned that there is no indication of site notability. Where must this indication occur and how is it determined? Research on KegelMale, for example, reveals no such notability in keeping with Wikipedia terms, with the exception, if it might be considered, of one company-submitted online press release.
Regarding conflict of interest, where does such a conflict occur? I have no financial stake in the company, but regard it as an effective method of guided kegel exercise. Please advise. Thank you. Doctorsinclair (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ohnoitsjamie: As I told Dancter, I really think some administrators are being dictatorial and indiscriminate in their editing and deletion of external links. There are links to commercial sites which are selling things, which only offer very meager information on a subject which are not deleted, but a www.johnkeats.org is removed, which contains only poetry and information about poets. Incidentally, a site like john-keats.com is allowed an external link. Where is the fairness? Dovereg (talk) Dovereg (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Ohnoitsjamie, what would you suggest I do with the adoption page? It's technically in his user space, could I request an AfD? Do I blank it but leave the history? What do you think? Padillah (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a tough one, given that he's not indefinitely blocked (though the next block will be indefinite). I'm not sure under what criteria it could be deleted. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Glad to be of service. My sense of humor has been honed through decades of observing the giants - Henny Youngman, Groucho Marx, Bennett Cerf, etc., until I've got it down to a pseudo-science. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?01:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a stub about a book of controversial claims by an eye doctor and self-styled historian. It was published by a marginal press or self-publisher (can't find it), and has not been reviewed or supported by reliable sources. I tried to nominate it for deletion, but am doing something wrong and can't get it listed. Can you help? Thanks.--Parkwells (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, there were "nowiki" tags around it, which prevented it from being rendered correctly. If the WP:PROD is challenged, you can send it to WP:AFD. Let me know if you need help with that. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk17:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, someeone removed the WP:PROD and said on the Talk page that I misunderstood the ideas about notability and confused it with truth (or something like that.) Nothing substantive has been added, and there aren't any reliable reviews of the book which I can find, just repetition of what the guy claims. I've read the Wikipedia material carefully and still think we're wasting space to give such trash any credence by repeating their claims. What do you think?--Parkwells (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Block concerning "Disruptive editing"
The most recent revisions to Hispanic and Latino Americans were in reaction towards the bad-faith revisions of unsourced and outdated content, in addition to unsourced sociopolitical bias.
The original objection concerned a new section entitled Media representation, complete with verifiable sources. However, it would get deleted based on a frivolous issue of "Cut & Paste;" meanwhile, unsourced and clearly partisan material in the following Political Trends section was always restored. I made the efforts to discuss the material with the original opponent, SamEV, and later Jersey Devil. Unfortunately, these would quickly erupt into so-called "flame wars" including cynical credential attacks. There were also frequent revisions of poor grammar and outdated statistics, implying perhaps that ALL changes to the article went unread.
SamEV eventually moved onto other areas of the article. For a while the additions remained undisturbed, outside of a one-word edit by another user, and were apparently tolerated by all other users. About a week later, however, Jersey Devil charged back threatening deletion if the destructive revision of outdated, unsourced, and point of view content was undone. When confronted, J.D. opted to fullfill the threat rather than explain the actions.
There was and is nothing disruptive about my work. I should not, nor should anyone else, be punished for standing out against hypocrisy and intolerance. Jersey Devil should be held accountable for incompetence, P.o.V. pushing, and administrative abuse.
Indef blocking of an editor with whom you've had repeated negative interactions just doesn't ever look good. If he screws up again, feel free to drop me a note and *I* will indef him, or ask any other uninvolved admin. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It's not often that I get a golden opportunity to use one of my favorite Star Wars quotes in an unblock without being a jerk. I have a new hope that Matt shifts his attention to a more appropriate wiki. OhNoitsJamieTalk20:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Valid External Link Deleted
Hello Jamie,
I was just going to add more data to Forex page http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Foreign_exchange_market and noticed that an external link that I had added was removed (ForexCalendar.Com). I also studied the WP: article about external link and I believe that this is not spam. Would it be possible to restore this or let me know why it cannot be added?
i disagree with your suggestion that lawyer blogs are not reliable sources. not that i am a fan of them, but lawyers are very highly paid for their opinions, and i think that in general, they probably have very good information (hence the high pay). however, more than that, i don't believe that such a broad generalization is useful to anyone. if mcdonalds blogs about their happy meal, should we not cite their blog? each source should be evaluated on its own merit and not swept into a generalization as you are trying to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmanstan (talk • contribs) 02:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of Rbvrelucio. Just in case you're interested, there are new editors, all of whom registered within the last 2 days, who are doing essentially the same thing. Their handles are "Sobresaliente" and "TestStrip09". I'd hate to be paranoid about it but I think that this is still Richard Relucio at work. Rmcsamson (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we'll need to file a request for check user. I probably won't have time to do that today; in the meantime, I'll take care of the latest. Thanks, OhNoitsJamieTalk22:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bean Boy
It was not me who commited the vandalism, but another user of my server. However I have taken the neccessary precautions to make sure it does not happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanboy911 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for indef-ing the latest User:Pioneercourthouse sock, who created that user in October and then patiently waited for a chance to use it. This megillah has been going on since October of 2006. The persistence of these characters is amazing. I wonder how many more sleeper socks he's got, but I reckon we'll soon find out. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?05:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. On the bright side, it's much less effort for me to indef block a sleeper than it is for a sleeper to evade semi-protection. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk06:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![[4]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg){kind=link}