Give me a hand in maintaining the article [[Saffron Terror]] as few users like Arjun are busy deleting and vandalising the contents [[User:Akilash|Akilash]] ([[User talk:Akilash|talk]]) 07:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Give me a hand in maintaining the article [[Saffron Terror]] as few users like Arjun are busy deleting and vandalising the contents [[User:Akilash|Akilash]] ([[User talk:Akilash|talk]]) 07:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
== Sir Francis Drake - not really! ==
Has reappeared as [[User:NRSFD]] and is accusing you of deleting some articles on English rugby union league seasons. (see [[User_talk:Noq#Important!!! -- Please pay attention]]).
If you have actually deleted them and it is not just a rant, can you userfy them to sub articles of [[User:Noq]] please. I want to see if there is anything that can be saved. [[User:Noq|noq]] ([[User talk:Noq|talk]]) 11:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Revision as of 11:18, 19 June 2010
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, Wikipedia external link guidelines and conflict-of-interest 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.
Raised Relief Map Reference
I added a reference link (ref 9) to a company that is a technological leader in this area, and who's "how we do it" page is better than another company reference listed now (ref 8). The new reference (9) was removed. If the other reference (8) is allowed, why isn't this new and better reference allowed? --- 3Dmapmaker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3dmapmaker (talk • contribs) 21:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the blurb at the top of the page. I dont' understand how you can allow a reference link to one commercial site and not another which provides as much or more information. This doesn't seem right or fair. You should enforce the policy equally with regard to all of us professionals who advance this technology -- either delete all the commercial reference links, or allow them, but do it with a consistent policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3dmapmaker (talk • contribs) 12:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bit I posted about Moscow being attacked by Doctor Octagonapus was, as specifically labeled, a myth. It is actually a popular myth here at our school. This would be beneficial to keep on the website simply because the people of Moscow should know their mythological history, rather than live in ignorance. Being clearly labeled as a myth, it is not "false information." I would appreciate it if you would put it back on. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew J Yach (talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Credit Counseling article contribution I submitted is accurate information and needs to be shared. Instead of reverting my edits and declaring them as spam, rewrite them in a way that you feel is objective enough. And stop leaving spam badges on my talk page. Searchmaven (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IT'S A LEGITIMATE REFERENCE. Why don't you do some referencing work yourself instead of following my edits around. Get off your high horse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Searchmaven (talk • contribs) 21:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you feel that the Principality of Sealand article is Notable??? Have you checked the references!? They are all links to his content. The article is a joke. I AM familiar with the conflict of interest policy and I don't work for Debtmerica so thanks but no thanks. Searchmaven (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you can say truthfully that they're not a client of yours either? Regardless, it's not a reliable source, period. Sealand has plenty of legit news references. Take it to AfD if you don't think it's notable. It'll most likely be speedily kept. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because it doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB notability guidelines, as explained on the nomination. Further discussion belongs on the article's AFD page, not here. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those debt settlement references from debtmerica.com and credit.com are the best references I can find. Given the nature of the industry it's not easy to find a more reliable source. Especially the credit.com article... it's just a general industry news article on their site and not related to their offer. That article needs a lot of citations in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.15.62 (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fabritius(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) claims to be "H.E. the Prince Massimo, Prince Don Fabrizio Massimo Brancaccio"[1] and is adding that claim to Massimo He started by removing sources to insert his unsourced claim.[2] A couple IPs repeated Massimo's removal of sources to make the claim, while adding a source that gets vastly less GScholar hits than the one he removed.[3][4][5][6] Fabritius then repeated the same [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] eventually adding a sources before his birth and the websites of some private clubs (that don't seem to mention his claims) to "prove" he is the rightful head of the Massimo family. The page was locked and good deal of time spent on the talk page trying to explain Conflict of Interest and Reliable Sources to Fabritius, which he ignored.[27]Edward321 (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for attempting to reason with Fabritius. As you saw, his sources consist of a few web pages (which don't meet his own unique definition of an authoritative sources) and sources from before he was born, which obviously can't prove he exists, let alone his claims about being a prince. I have showed him sources, including the English translation of the Italian Constitution, which show that Italian titles of nobility were abolished in 1948, yet he still insists he is a prince. I have shown him that the Almanac de Gotha is cited on Google Scholar over 80 times more often than "elenco ufficiale" and "libro d'oro" combined, yet he refuses to accept Gotha as a source. Now that you have warned him and reverted his edits (the 28th time he has been reverted bu my count), maybe this will get his attention. Regardless, thanks for trying. Edward321 (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Engagement ring
Hi, you deleted some information on the Engagement ring page because you considered it advertising. Could you please explain exactly what was wrong with it? All I did was make two very vague statements more accurate. The first one was about the first engagement ring. The original line states that it was given by "an" archduke in Vienna in the 1470's. I provided the names of the people involved an the exact year. I also added that the diamond in the engagement ring symbolizes eternal love. I think this is important because this explains why engagement rings have a diamond in it. This is not mentioned anywhere else on the page and I think it is important to explain how the tradition started.
The second piece of information I added was about what factors determine the cost of an engagement ring. Once again, I think this is valuable information that needs to be present on this page.
I think I only added objective and factual information. It was in no way advertising or even mend to be advertising. I agree that we need to be very careful when using commercial websites as references. But I never stated the name of the website or provided a link to a page were products were offered. The only references I used were good and solid information pages. I also don't think it's out of line to use a jeweler's website as a reference for which factors influence the price of an engagement ring.
I am very interested in hearing your thoughts about this.
Kind regards
Stevenvdveken (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Massimo article - Fabritius has ignored your advice + a request for help
Dear Jamie. I write as a follow up to Edward321's post above on the Massimo article, and your subsequent post on Fabritius's talk page on 15/05/10, asking him to 'Please continue use the talk pages before making controversial and/or major changes to articles. You have yet to achieve any sort of consensus on this page for the edits you are proposing'.
Since then, Fabritius has ignored your warning/request (although he has clearly read your comments) and simply continued to edit war the article, resuming a practice he followed before the first protection of the article on the 20/04/10 (see Massimo article edit history).
Fabritus's changes replace the simple three line last paragraph on the heirs to the family honours (in which he is respectfully referenced as one of the main title holders - indeed he is mentioned first) with a series of vanity paragraphs about himself, the deletion of all other heirs and other information, and the deletion of the correct sources (for which there is a consensus).
He has done this without any sort of consensus for his changes, which are significant and clearly controversial. Indeed, there is a clear consensus on the talk page against his proposed changes to the last paragraph, a paragraph which has remained essentially unchanged in format since 2006 (see the edit by 'CARAVAGGISTI' on 28/09/06 in this version, para at bottom) until Dec 2009 (see the edit by LeilaniLad on 2/12/09 in this version, para at bottom). Between Sept 2006 and Jan 2010 many editors altered content in the article itself, but the paragraph in dispute remained essentially the same until Fabtitius began changing it in Jan 2010.
The issue here is that despite a huge amount of patience and extensive reference work by myself and by Edward321 on the Massimo talk page, and despite repeated warnings/urgings by other editors (Fabritius has been warned about the need to seek consensus by yourself, and by other editors and admins, for example see this post by TheDJ), he is simply ignoring the rules and just making the changes anyway, without a single person agreeing with him on the talk page.
He has a clear COI (see this warning by Dave1185). His behaviour is often very aggressive despite no one else ever responding in kind - indeed he has repeatedly insulted any editor who does not simply roll over and agree with him, branding them 'biased' (see this post), a 'liar' (see this post), and 'ridiculous' (see this post). His tactic seems to be to simply try and wear people down until he gets his way without abiding by the spirit and rules of Wikipedia. He has been warned against this sort of behaviour (see this warning) by other editors, but simply ignores all this advice and/or these warnings.
All I and Edward321 are trying to do is keep the last paragraph in its original format and defend it against serial, non-consensus based vanity editing, and we have backed up the original with extensive sources and references, yet all this work is being ignored by this editor. After his first resumption of edit warring on the 14/05/10 I posted a message politely asking him not to do this again, yet he has done this twice since I posted and indeed twice since your warning (with Edward321 reverting the article back each time). I have tried so hard to keep things calm and based on facts, and invested an enormous amount of time to do the exhaustive research (as you can see from the article talk page), yet I just don't believe Fabritius is interested in a discussion, he just wants to steamroll others to get his way and I think this is deeply unfair.
As you can see there is a clear consensus for the original version (as restored at 23.53 on the 18/05/10 by Edward321 in this edit).
Is there anything you can do to help us with this editor? I was just about to revert Fabritius's last edit myself and restore the original/consensus version when I thought I would ask you if you would be prepared to do it instead, having noticed that you are currently online. I think if the revert came from an administrator - particularly one whose warning/advice he had already ignored once - it would be much less likely to be undone. I (or Edward321 I would imagine) will do it if you don't feel you can, but I wanted to ask you first as I think a revert from you with a warning not to change it back without first getting a consensus would be much more effective in putting an end to this rather exhausting example of serial abuse.
Your help on this and indeed anything else you could do to prevent this from happening again would be much appreciated.
Dear Jamie,
Edward321 and Historybuff1930 are trying to evade the issue. Please see my comments on my talkpage.
You reverted the article which I amended referencing many wikipedia's ialian articles and original autohoritative sources. This way all the references to the wikipedia's articles have been deleted.
You also reinserted angelfire -that source is widely used by hiostorybuff1930 to alter wikipedia's articles on the main princely roman families. As he admitted he's not an expert in italian heraldry nor speaks italian: he doesn't know what he's talking about. He only inserts the words 'Princely family represented by ....., whose heir is .......' plus he deletes correct text from other articles, like he did in the Colonna article (another roman princely family). Please see my post on my talk page.
After months of vain and silly disputes I think you should be concerned on the correctness of the article which you can easily check by inspoecting the other wp's articles (in italian), my edit of the article with explanations of how italian titles were granted and the responses to the other 2 biased editors.
I've read your comments. Unlike yourself, Edward321 and Historybuff1930 are long-term editors with excellent contribution histories in a variety of topics. You are not addressing points made on the article's talk pages, and your sources do not meet WP:Reliable sources standards. If you continue to edit war against a consensus, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamieTalk13:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not true. Which are the points I didn't address?
Regarding the excellent contributions did you check the Colonna article? The Carbognano branch (still exixting nowadays) was deleted by Historybuff.
Didi you check the italian wikipedia articles which you deleted by reverting the article? Should even those be deleted?
I'm not concerned with the content of the Italian Wikipedia; that's up to editors and admins on that wiki. Other wiki's cannot be used as sources, for the same reason that Wikipedia can't use it's own articles as sources. You have yet to provide convincing proof of your claims, which is what Edward and Historybuff are trying to tell you. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jamie - Fabritius started edit warring again between posts on this page. He reverted the main article to his version at 14.02 today, per this edit. This was 9 minutes after presumably reading your 13.51 post above where you warned him that 'If you continue to edit war against a consensus, you will be blocked', and before he wrote back to you at 14.16. Quite extraordinary. I posted on the Massimo talk page yesterday inviting Fabritius back to a discussion, yet the talk page is the one place he has not bothered to respond on today. He is clearly just not interested in a discussion, merely in trying to force everyone to agree with him, including you now. Given he has reverted your edit this time, would you mind once again changing the article back to the consensus version and perhaps suggesting to him that doing this again might not be a great idea? Many thanks in advance, Historybuff1930 (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw you deleted the DoceboLMS page, we paid strong attention to not go in COI and we respected rules. In detail we: Linked only open source community and not commercial site Described only software features and not "emphatize" software plus Nothing more. Please note, all the other Open Source LMS (e-learning) are listed and not marked as spam, for example Dokeos, DimDim, talk heavily about his commercail company and we didn't. Please note that we are the only one OOS LMS not in wikipedia.
Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudioerba (talk • contribs) 17:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to nominate the other ones for deletion. WP:COI policy states that you should not make an article about your own organization. Furthermore, you provided no third-party sources to indicate how the LMS is notable. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fabritius
Thanks for the heads up. I don't have anything to add to his talk page at the moment; he clearly hasn't been listening to me for a long while now. Thank you for trying to reason with him. I don't think he realizes how counterproductive his unblock "request" and his edit summaries are. Edward321 (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Massimo
In the BLP page there's written "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources." You guys don't seem to be much concerned.
When you intervene in a dispute try to solve the issue and not just threaten to block without discussing, as you did. The same goes for edward321 and historybuff1930 who only ridiculously complained but didn't take time to respond. - Fabritius (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear that Edward and Historybuff have attempted to resolve this matter with you. Edit warring immediately after a block for edit warring has resulted in a longer block. If you continue this disruptive behavior, it may lead to an indefinite block. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Third Opinions
Hey, Jamie, not a big deal, but when you give a Third Opinion, would you mind removing the request from the list at the project page with an edit summary showing that you've taken it and the number of requests that remain? Thank you for helping at the project. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie, I always smile when your name turns up in the edit history of an article I watch; we don't cross paths too often, but when we do it's always a pleasure to work with you! Regarding your placement of the Criticism of Muhammad link within the article, it's actually something I had been considering for a while. The "Other Views" section certainly seems most appropriate for it, but I had been planning to write a (very!) brief paragraph using Summary Style and provide the link as a "Main Article: X" rather than a "See Also". Would you be ok with that approach? The gist of the paragraph would be to simply acknowledge that various criticisms exist historically, without going into any specific detail about them at all in the main Muhammad article. Either way, it's good to see you again : ) Doc Tropics17:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you again too! Sure, I agree that the section could use a good reorg; I was just trying to find a compromise to provide a link to the article in a more appropriate section than the lead. I think approach you describe adequately addresses the topic (and the existence of other articles) without giving it undue weight. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I took a crack at it. The prose is shorter and blunter than I wanted it to be, but I suspect that including any more details would be counter-productive since it's a contentious issue. Happy editing, Doc Tropics18:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, just spent the last half hour deleting that user's ridiculous crap from talk pages per WP:DENY. I can't believe her new account was tolerated for so long, and I'm sorry I wasn't paying closer attention to some of her favorite targets. OhNoitsJamieTalk01:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough post those warnings of yours but if i remove somebody's message, there's a reason for it, don't just go and put it back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.62.45 (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's standard policy to warn user's via their talk page when their actions are moving them closer to being blocked. Blanking your talk page will not prevent you from being blocked for disruptive editing, which is what's going to happen if you continue posting contentious and poorly sourced material. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie, Can you please take a look at the Government in Exile Page? There is a revert War going on on that page, and both parties have violated 3RR, I think a lock on the page is needed until the issue is resolved. Thanks much. T-1000 (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am Akilash who is interested to develop the article Hosur. I am studying XI standard and I live in Hosur. I saw you keeping the article from Vandals. I am now a registered member of wiki but I am not able to edit the same. Help me and guide me in developing the article related to Hosur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akilash (talk • contribs) 04:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response, but not able to follow you. Should I place the entire article on Hosur at this page for your reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akilash (talk • contribs) 13:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user:Arjun024 is talking about my IP which may be related to his Edit War users. Does user:Arjun024 has rights to reveal my privacy (IP address) in a discussion forum (page)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akilash (talk • contribs) 04:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know Ohnoitsjamie, that i have serious doubts about the intentions of User:Akilash - have a look at his contribs. Moreover, in Talk:Hosur i didnot say that the IP was himself. I doubt that the following users could be the same person as well:
why did you revert the edit of "Category: corporate crime" from the monsanto article? The article documents several crimes the company committed. --T1980 (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie, long time since I bothered you. Please can you take a look at this article. It is linked from the little article I attempt to look after, Industrial Robot in the list of manufacturers. I could write a similar page for ST Robotics except that it would be an obvious advert and a conflict of interests. This article was written by someone whom I suspect is a member of the company. Is this a valid article?
ALL SORTED, sorry to bother you again! Robotics1 (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know! I don't know how I missed the improper filling.
Thanks for letting me know before I got to far along! :)
VoodooIsland (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie,
I see you own a classic car, I have also owned several including old Mustangs, GTO’s and a (cheap) 20 year old Ferrari. I have posted a few informative editorial videos of cars that people may never have a chance to see.
In my own case as a classic car lover I would have scoffed at the thought of a Bugatti as being to flashy, too new a car, till I saw the video. After seeing the video I would die just to have a chance to see one in real life, though I may never (I will never be able to own one unless that lotto comes through)
I think the videos offer a service to the readers giving a look at the car inside and out the people who may want to see it have a choice to click and watch the video if they chose to.
I have read the guide lines and do not see any rule that prohibits this. As I said, it's just freedom of choice for the reader.
Removed external links from articles about ORM frameworks / 213.168.161.140
Hello Jamie,
Before few days you removed links to our product ORM Designer from Doctrine,Propel,CakePHP and ORM site here on wikipedia. I know that these links are to our external site orm-designer.com, and our product is commercial. But I think that the tool that I mentioned on these pages is highly relevant. Most of people coming from wikipedia to our page are interested in. ORM Designer is directly specialized on these frameworks and in these days it is the only one existing tool for this purpose.
By considering these facts, can be our tool mentioned here on wikipedia on these pages?
External Link removal on the hawking web page User:hummy2
Thanks for your welcome. Sorry if my external link didn't suite the wikipedia criteria. I read the pages about this and though I am not violating anything. Since on the hawking page discussion page was written that information about the hunting itself was missing I thought that the hunting photos would help to support this. I work together with the German falconry origanisation (DFO) to be able to make those photos.
Any other way I can support this in an wikipedia accepted way to improve this article?
No advertisments are on the website and I receive no payments when people visit my website, if this info helps. Thanks in advance, (Hummy2 (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
OK I understand, since I link my website. Conflict of interest etc. But since I don't earn my living with photos and these are not manipulated. These photos do extend the purpose of wikipedia article to visualise hunting with bird of prey, which I am missing. Or is it better to load these in the wikipedia commons and add these to the article? Or is it because of the lack of expertice? I represented on the last trade show in Munich the German Falconery organisation with my hunting photos. Thanks in advance, (Hummy2 (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Uploading them to Commons is a great idea, as long as you don't mind the licensing terms (i.e., you agree to release rights to them). I prefer to use the "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0" license myself. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Hey Ohnoitsjamie - could you take a minute or two to comment on the discussion of Closing Time (Semisonic song) as it pertains to the type of song it is and the source used? See the edit history of the article and the discussion of User talk:Y2kcrazyjoker4, I'm pretty sure I have a reliable source, but need a third party to comment. Thanks. --Yankees76 (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have actually deleted them and it is not just a rant, can you userfy them to sub articles of User:Noq please. I want to see if there is anything that can be saved. noq (talk) 11:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
