User talk:Jkwinter

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Jkwinter! Thank you for your contributions. I am I dream of horses and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 11:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Spicy Sri Lankan Fish Curry (Malu Mirisata)

The article Spicy Sri Lankan Fish Curry (Malu Mirisata) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTRECIPE

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gbawden (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Please stop adding references to articles that have nothing to do with the subject of the article as you did to barbecue, mandelbrodt and Croatian cuisine. Takeaway (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How you say those are not relevant? I just added because those are recipes. That would not helpful for the readers? Jkwinter (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are constantly adding recipes for other dishes than the dishes mentioned in the articles. That is why they are not relevant. Takeaway (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you again to please stop adding links to recipes that are not related to the dish they are supposed to be a reference for, such as you did here. The reference you provided was not for "Frango no churrasco"~but for a different barbecued chicken dish. - Takeaway (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

foodtolove.com.au (*|search current) These links are spam and will be removed from Wikipedia. These additions are not welcome here.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jkwinter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm new to the wikipedia and I'm very much interested in food recipes. So I added some links which I found on a web site. This last Link I've added was a exact matching link for my knowledge because I see a same type of recipe link standing nearby that section. So why I've got blocked? I'm not doing these for any spammy thing or advertising purpose. Please Help me to figure this out. Thank you Jkwinter (talk) 11:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given your edit history, I would only be willing to unblock your account under the condition that you explicitly agree to refrain from adding any further links to foodtolove.com in the future. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jkwinter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not add foodtolove.com for the advertising purpose. I have added another links also, but why this happens only for the foodtolove.com? will it happen if I add links twice for a exact web site? I agree not to add foodtolove.com links. But I need to know the reason as I'm a newone for wiki. thank you Jkwinter (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

see below
— Berean Hunter (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming a recipe is bad enough but also removing real refs while doing it?
Ref spam like this is interesting. Tell us, how does that ref support the statement "The Boston Market fast casual restaurant chain originally specialized in roast chicken."?
Here you interject your *ahem* ref in front of the actual ref and the dish that you placed there isn't related to the Portugese dish being discussed...and those concerns have been brought up to you before. What is your relation to the site you keep interjecting links to?
Here you interject a recipe into a lede and it is out of context. Looks really promotional to me.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 11:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any relation with that site, but when I found that site It looks good to me and I have found many recipes there and I also tried them at home. As I'm new to the wiki I was trying to add links and get something from wiki for my knowledge. I'm not promoting that site but I was trying to interact within the wiki as a new comer.Still I'm learning thing from you all. Jkwinter (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please address the questions that I've asked above.
  — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have been checking their edits, and reverting most of them due to the addition of non-relevant refs, and I have come to the conclusion that it is not so much a case of deliberate spamming, but more of not understanding when a ref is actually relevant and when it isn't. Strangely enough, the addtion of a ref that Berean Hunter reverted as spam here, was their first one to actually be relevant! I think this user has latched on to the foodtolove website because it is one which they like, and view as a reliable website. What remains now is wp:competence. So far this user has not shown to understand that their edits do not comply with Wikipedia standards. See for instance how they removed a source here, that I had placed in an article they had created which actually referenced the remark that came before it, and how they replaced it with their preferred version which doesn't mention anything about what it was supposed to be a ref for. - Takeaway (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Takeaway (talk) Thank you very much for understanding me. I know I'm new to wikipedia and I have to know many things before interacting with the articles. But now I've got a huge experience after this incident and I think I can go ahead gathering experience and your guidelines. Jkwinter (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Berean Hunter (talk)I was not adding spamming links to those articles, but I agree with you there were non-relevant refs because of my mistake. I don't do any promotional things on wiki,but I was trying to get experience and interect on wiki while giving readers something suitable on my end. I hope you'll understand me. Do I have permission to work again on wikipedia or still I'm at the blocked section? Jkwinter (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of work do you wish to do? If unblocked, how will you take what you have learned from Takeaway, Yunshui and I and apply that to editing articles?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter (talk) As other people I am interested in wikipedia,So this is how I am learning and experiencing about it. I like to add some more value to other articles by editing them with what I know and I like to create my own articles and publish on wiki.I am interested in food things. I think I can improve and do better work in wiki with your guidance. Jkwinter (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to unblock on the condition that you avoid adding references or external links until you have read and understood what reliable sources are. You may want to re-read some of the links at the top of your talk page as well as these dos and don'ts. You can learn which sources are good enough for inclusion in articles as well as more about referencing in general by looking at our Introduction to referencing.

Also, if you have any questions, a good place to ask them would be the teahouse, a forum which is welcoming to new editors. Good luck and happy editing.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter (talk) Thank you for the support and for unblocking. I'll get the details on those wiki guides and be good in editing. Jkwinter (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, unrelated references

Please stop adding references for dishes that are not mentioned in the text that it is supposed to reference, as you did here. Please read WP:WHYCITE and WP:INLINECITE. - Takeaway (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that you really don't understand what it means to add references to articles. The sentence this edit of yours is supposed to reference is "Bananas appeared in the US in the 1870s and it took a while for them to appear as ingredient items for desserts." Where does the reference that you added say anything about 1870' and that "it took a while for them to appear as ingredient items"? Perhaps it would be best if you gave up adding references to articles. - Takeaway (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again about references -> The reference that is needed here is not for what string hoppers are, but for the complete sentence "This can be usually served with rice, bread or string hoppers.". - Takeaway (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Takeaway (talk) I've added here a reference regarding string hoppers with the fish curry and it is now deleted. But I think that is a suitable reference to that. Could you please help me out to figure it out.Jkwinter (talk) 10:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't mention Malu Mirisata. It only mentioned "fish curry" which could be another type of curry. Not all fish curry is Malu Mirisata. I have noticed from the text in the Malu Mirisata article, that you don't seem to understand this, equating very different fish curries with Malu Mirisata. Takeaway (talk)

Blocked

I'm sorry, but you seem to still be having problems with adding unrelated or tangentially related links as references. You have also added a link to "foodtolove.com.au", which you explicitly promised not to do. I have re-instated your block accordingly. Kuru (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But why that is not relevant? you guys are removing everything that I'm adding. What is the wrong with that recipe? That is a relevant recipe. Why you guys removing all the stuff that I've added? I have no business with foodtolove.com.au but I've mentioned before that I have found very good recipes there, I was not adding spammy links and the last link you removed was 100% relevant with that recipe. I am so dissapointed.Jkwinter (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit where you again added an external link to a recipe did not say anything about the sentence that it was seemingly referencing -> "One of the most common variants is apple rhubarb crisp, in which the rhubarb provides a tart contrast to the apples".

After your first block, you were unblocked by Berean Hunter "on the condition that you avoid adding references or external links until you have read and understood what reliable sources are", to which you then agreed but never acted upon.

It has been explained to you many times why your additions to articles were not valid references but you still continued in the exact same vein without any progress. - Takeaway (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jkwinter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked again by wikipedia,and I think I have not added un-wanted, Non-relevant links to articles because those references were having more than 50% of meaning of the sentence.

Decline reason:

You were given a second chance and you blew it. If I see any account spamming that link again, I will personally add it to our spam blacklist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.