'''PLEASE LEAVE NEW COMMENTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE.'''
'''PLEASE LEAVE NEW COMMENTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE.'''
== [[UFFFF]] ==
You are so annoying. Every page has an External LINK and my external links are VALID !!!... Why do you keep removing them. My website is a genuine site.. please go check it out... it has ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING about afghans, afghan culture, afghan history, afghan music, afghan videos, afghan TV, afghan EVERYTHING. And in each appropriate section..i have placed EXTERNAL LINK. But nOoOooOo JAMIE has to come and remove it. Man...u suck :-( ...
== [[actorspages.org]] ==
== [[actorspages.org]] ==
Hi,
Hi,
Revision as of 11:12, 2 November 2007
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!
You are so annoying. Every page has an External LINK and my external links are VALID !!!... Why do you keep removing them. My website is a genuine site.. please go check it out... it has ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING about afghans, afghan culture, afghan history, afghan music, afghan videos, afghan TV, afghan EVERYTHING. And in each appropriate section..i have placed EXTERNAL LINK. But nOoOooOo JAMIE has to come and remove it. Man...u suck :-( ...
I understand that you're trying to keep your pages spam free. But there is no way in the world that the existing links that are listed there are no considered as spam, and the urls that I provide are.
There must be consistency. Otherwise, it seems very peculiar that you will let some sites be listed, and others not, when they all provide the same type of content.
Please provide a clear message why you keep removing actorspages.org, which is a well known source for free casting calls and auditions for actors, including great acting articles, and yet you keep other types of services (which I may add - require a fee)? And some of those services are don't even need to be there.
Conflict-of-interest and WP:EL policies say that you should not add links to your own site (especially on multiple articles, which registers on spam-radar.
Thanks for your reply, however, please consider the following:
1) The site was added only in three places, each one of those places was the right category. You are using the word spam too easily, if our site is spam, then every other one you have there should also be considered as spam.
2) I'm not the website owner, this site is running by volunteers. Those volunteers are actors, directors, and producers. This website is relevant to the articles it was submitted for. I'm not promoting it, I marly recommend it to my fellow actors, as a relevant source in the acting filed.
3) It is not "free" in some sense, it is free in every sense. As a matter of fact it is the ONLY free professional site for actors. "advertising and solicits donations" - there is nothing wrong in that, should I remind you how Wikipedia keeps on running ?
4) I really won't keep on justify my actions, I said what is needed to be said. Your removing of our links has nothing to do with Wikipedia policies, if it was, then ALL of the links that are there can be removed as well. You might want to take a closer look, some of them are there for years, and they are not helping any user, nor the article itself.
Per an earlier discussion, I also respectfully disagree with your removal of links to com fireworksland.com and Pyro Universe from fireworks-related articles. These links contain large amounts of information on fireworks, and I feel that these links should be included.
In the earlier discussion, you told the user to read the policy on external links. If you're going to cite WP:EL, that's fine, but please clarify which of the thirteen guidelines the link(s) in question may have violated. If you only offer vague explanations, then users will simply think that you're removing the links in bad faith. Thanks. --Ixfd6421:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sites in question are not inherently commercial sites. While they do sell products, their main purpose is to provide information, rather than make money. I'll also bring up this discussion on the talk pages to see what other users think. --Ixfd6421:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the user who asked me if I could "do something about it" was not the webmaster of Fireworksland com. --Ixfd6422:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of pixel advertising link
HI. I'm learning through trial by fire here. I put a self serving link to my website in order to drive traffic to it. But, I have to wonder, is this not promotional:Million Dollar Home Page That said, I do think the other concepts that I placed in the entry are relevant such as the idea that many of the million dollar homepage copy cats are using the revenue from the pixel sales in a variety of very interesting ways. Some really are just trying to make a buck and others are trying to raise money for various causes or endeavors. I was going to come back and link to bunch of different sites, other than my own, that are pursuing this model of funding. I really think the fact that people are using it as a source of funding is more interesting than the advertising aspect of the model.
Dexter Day is not vandalism! I know lots of people who celebrate it! It is today, for one thing, and I am wearing red socks. This holiday (named for a deceased cat "Dexter") was begun in 1886. We have all worn red socks and eatten pancakes, since I was about 3 years old, and I am now 30, with two children of my own. (Both wearing red socks today.) Don't be so quick to decide you know everything. Also, I was able to print out the pages yesterday that showed Dexter Day (as an unofficial holiday, I might add)and give it to my 83 year old Grandmother, who was very proud to take it to her friends as proof of the holiday she has always celebrated.
Thank you for that fascinating information. I'll be sure to perambulate my billy goat, and will gesticulate wildly at sprouts while doing so. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pest Control
Hi Jamie, I noticed that usaexterminators.com has added a non-peer reviewed link to itself on the Pest Control page. The external link does not contribute any value to the article. I'm not sure what to do here; could you intervene please? Cheers mate!--Simonay04:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you removed a recently-added link on the Avacor page, and found the rationale rather puzzling. While the person who added it should have taken style in to consideration, the link was not spam.
In fact, the link was to an exposé from ABC's 20/20 program, which almost certainly passes the WP:RS test, and is entirely relevant to the article.
I suppose WP:Copyright could be raised, however, I'd argue that the spirit of WP:Copyright is intended to prevent (for instance) articles about musicians from having links to pirated copies of their albums, or movie articles from having links to BitTorrent files.
I have. And unless you're somehow privy to information that isn't published, there's no way of knowing whether or not ABC has authorized the video clip to be on YouTube. Frankly, that's for Google/YouTube to sort out; not Wikipedians. And again, I would seriously argue that this goes against the spirit of WP:Copyright. Moreover, considering NBC and CBS both use YouTube for promotional purposes, it isn't unreasonable to believe that ABC does as well. Kevin23:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it's no Spam it's the website of a BOOK that has been published; a reliable source. you're a joke. you can't delete
the whole block of info like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.117.144.189 (talk • contribs).
Why did you delete the article 'The Emancipation of Jonny'?
Not notable? Try imdb.com
Why did'nt i cite it? What good would that be if you'd neglect it like always?
Honestly, what's your problem?
You just tend to pretentiously delete an article you ONCE found incongruous - What a hypocrite!
Anyone can register with imdb and enter information about a movie, and as such, an imdb listing is not sufficient to prove this movie actually exists. All of the Google hits appear to stem from a rumor you probably started. In fact, Duff's people confirmed that she is involved in no such movie. In other words, there are no reliable sources for this existence of this movie. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct when you claim that imdb.com allows all registered users to assist in the information for films, but you should also know that "as if a leading company website" like them, would add pretnetious and misleading information about a high-esteemed industry on the internet. They have personal clarification with the production companies and producers - unlike you!
WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I really don't understand how you could consider the last picture added an attack image. It was not meant to disparage the subject in any way. It was simply a picture of a mooseknuckle. If the words below the main photo were not appropriate, I'll just edit all that part out. I believe that this is a matter of opinion. Frankly, I don't see how you can be the prosecutor, judge, and jury in all this (but as I've said before, taking the words off of the picture is something that I wouldn't be against doing).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tireddriftin (talk • contribs).
It would be quite easy for me to establish a consensus that the picture is not appropriate, caption or not. Please don't add it again in any form. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is that picture not appropriate; moreover, how is it different from the other picture on the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tireddriftin (talk • contribs).
Cameltoe and mooseknuckle are two separate things. I believe that most people would agree that they are quite different. If both cameltoe and mooseknuckle weren't condensed into one page, there wouldn't be any problem at all.
LaserEyeSurgeryTruth link
I understand that there is a lot of spam out there and we have to keep on top of things however I don't see how the site lasereyesurgerytruth.com is considered spam. I have been considering doing the surgery myself for a couple of years now and that site helped answer a lot of questions for me. With almost everything I do or consider doing, I research heavily and whenever I see an extremely resourceful site I like to put it up on the wikipedia, which is why I am so surprised as to why this one was taken down. I did take a look at your guidelines and the only one I saw bad was the fact that I placed the link in the #1 spot which I do apologize for and I hope you can understand. I would like to place a link there so maybe you can suggest something for this case and future ones so please advise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.122.14.63 (talk • contribs).
Jimothy, I find it absurd that you call my edit to beauty vandalism! I do find that girl beautiful, as I am sure many other people do. Perhaps if vandalism is going to be based on such opinions, we wikipedians should remove such an opinion based page! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkBollett (talk • contribs).
I want to make clear that I am not associated with the site that I made links to that I think you are referring to. I also want to make clear that I don't really care that you reverted the links and I am not asking you to reconsider.
On a larger level though, I am concerned about Wikipedia readers suffering from not getting to read the original KJV. For the King Jame Bible entry, there are now no links to that version. The remaining KJV links go to later versions, and versions which exclude the Apocrypha. I think that's a bit tragic. The Apocrypha was a key piece of the original KJV, much to the consternation of Rome -- which was the intended effect. I have created links to just three books of the Apocrypha. I could have created twenty, but I just linked to ones that I admire and have been reading lately. I sincerely think that a Wikipedian who reads about the KJV, or about Baruch, or Tobit, suffers if she doesn't get to see a link to the original 1611 KJV, and is instead shunted to the less culturally relevant versions of those text, such as you'll find in the NIV or later versions of the KJV. The 1611 KJV is the one that transformed English literature and influenced Shakespeare, the later versions are much drier.\
If you look at the links to Tobit that remain:
* Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) entry
* The Book of Tobit Full text from http://St-Takla.org (also available in Arabic)
* Jewish Encyclopedia: Tobit; gives an overview of the manuscript tradition
* World Wide Study Bible: Tobit
None of these are from the original 1611 -- remember that is the first place Tobit ever appeared in English...
I'd also like to point out that a lot of the edits I have made did not include any external links at all.
Thanks for listening :)
Janelle —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JRosine (talk • contribs) 01:55, August 21, 2007 (UTC).
Given that the site doesn't appear to be commercial and that you put forth a reasonable defense of it, I wouldn't object to you re-adding it to the King James entry; just avoid long strings of edits where it appears that you're just adding or replacing links with links to a particular site. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk04:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply Jamie. Have you seen the differences between the KJV and the NIV with regards tothe Beatitudes? It's interesting, because the Beatitudes page actually uses the language of the 1611 KJV, yet there is no link to it :(
I think the reason for the beauty of the KJV is that is was created entirely by Royal patronage -- no need to sell copies, or have mass appeal, which is the express purpose of the NIV.
When the NIV reads, in conclusion to the Beatitudes: Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
while the KJV reads: Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
You can really appreciate the difference. Not to take away from the NIV and the other consumer-conscious versions of the Bible in English - they have their value -- but the KJV is truly sublime, which I think is an appropriate one for any kind of scripture.
Cheers :)
Janelle —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JRosine (talk • contribs) 01:47, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
CoolApproach Deletion
Hi Jamie
I thought I'd as why my article 'CoolApproach' was deleted. It's about a social website. There are many many other equivalent articles about very similar sites and it seems a little strange to consider this one as unsuitable.
If it is anything to do with the formation of the article, it's the first time I've created a wiki and may have broken some rule so if I have please let me know what to do to correct this.
I'd be grateful if you could enlighten me.
Many thanks
Tamsin25009:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Thank you for experimenting with the page Vagina on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)"
I was not experimenting on the page. Vagina power is an example of "vagina in popular culture" that is more recent than tha vagina monologues but everyone is talking about it. Why don't you google it?
Second, why is it that you have time to leave me 2 notes & delete my postings on your page and on the vagina page but never respond to my question? Your most recent posting on my own talk page was an annoyingly patronizing "welcome to wikipedia" form letter. As I have said in my previous note:
if you clicked on my contribs, you would've seen that I've edited multiple pages for months.
Enough with the condescending BS. VAGINA POWER~!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelatomato (talk • contribs)
I changed your test notice to a welcome notice, as the test notice was a mistake. I deleted and did not respond to your first post here because you failed to follow my talk page instructions. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk21:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of adventure tourism portal
Hi there
You removed my external link from the South African page. It is my site - however, I fail to see how you remove my link, and not the link to www.nationalpark.co.za. It is not the official site for SANParks, and promotes - quite shamelessly - upmarket lodges in Southern Africa (a good deal of which fall outside of South Africa itself). Our site, on the other hand, not only carries information pertaining to events and activities in South Africa, it also champions the tourism product owners falling outside of the traditional marketing systems (GDS systems like Galileo, Amadeus etc.). The cost of these systems is prohibitive, meaning that these product owners never get to compete on a level playing field. Tourism in developing countries such as ours is critical for job creation - and in a vertically integrated infrastructure such as ours, it is important that we level the playing fields. For the record, we do not partake in any transactional revenue - connecting the customer with the product. Please explain
Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle; your link violates WP:EL policies; please do not add it again. If you feel that there are other links that violate that policy, feel free to delete them as well. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there
I am confused. Please humor me and I will get out of your hair. I accept the removal of the external link. I think it must be difficult to make subjective decisions regarding what is classified as advertising and what is not - which leads me to the second point, with particular reference to the external link to the website I mentioned. How do you stand firm on one decision, yet abdicate responsibility on an issue raised with you - an administrator. I am not an administrator, and do not want to play God - all I ask for is a level playing field, and you have obviously put up your hand as a volunteer to ensure this. So I ask, again. How do you, as an administrator, justify removal of my link, yet tolerate another that is equally - if not more - in violation of the WP:EL policy?
Got an edit conflicty message - I was sending you a message re-assuring you that I DO accept the deleted link - I am going to remove two other similar links I put in. Difficult job you have..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Play247 (talk • contribs) 22:42, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
I suggested a link www.forumdemprenedors.org on entrepreneur english page.
The first deletion reason (by Delldot) was that it's not in english although there are other links in the same page in spanish. The second that it's a violation of WP:EL. Ok, maybe. I'm suggesting this site in catalan because it could be usefull for any catalan speaker around the world. English is wide spread language. Anyone who want to make/start bussines with catalans or in Catalonia and Spain could be interested in, and off course all the catalans around the world who are entrepreneurs can do the same. But I must be wrong on the final utility of wikipedia links.
At least, what is the way to let it know to the wikipedians?
Thanks. (Athomix22:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Ibrahim999 (talk·contribs) was trying to do mass sneak vandalism directly after being unblocked, and almost all of his contributions to Wikipedia consist of content blanking or otherwise disrupting the project, so I don't understand why are you being so lenient with him. It doesn't seem like he got the message the first time, and there's really no reason to expect that he'll have a change of heart after the second block expires. Reinistalk21:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with this editor, and I elected to give the editor one more chance. If the editor continues to blank content after this block, the editor will be blocked indefinitely. OhNoitsJamieTalk00:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard from my staffperson, Ram Lau, that you are purging OnTheIssues.org links from wikipedia.
May I ask why?
We follow your rules regarding what should be linked: we are a site "with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."
I think if you look over our site you wuold agree that we are a non-partisan source of useful political information.
-- Jesse Gordon
jesse@OnTheIssues.org
617-320-6989
AIM & skype: jessegordon
Thank you -- I had already read the two pages but I reviewed them per your suggestion. We're not linking to a commercial site by "canvassing". My understanding of the negative aspect of "canvassing" is when someone posts many links to the same webpage. We wuold like to post one link each to many different webpages. On Hillary Clinton's wiki, we have a link to our Sen. Clinton page. On Barney Frank's wiki, we link to our page for Rep. Frank, but not to any other page. You'll find that our wiki links were all very specific -- and therefore not canvassing, in my view. Could you elaborate on what would be acceptable, if that's not?
Your objection seems to include that we're a commercial site. Yes, we have ads, to pay for our hosting, but other than that we're non-profit and all-volunteer. We provide non-partisan information that is unavailable anywhere else. That's not intended as a promotion -- I intend it as a description of what we do. I'll point out some distinctions between us and another link on wiki, to the Washington Post. They too are a commercial site with non-partisan info.
Both those pages include "key votes". We pretty much match what the WashPost does on votes. For example, under our Abortion topic, we list 5 key votes by Clinton. One of our key services is to summarize votes by topic, which the WashPost does not do.
Furthermore, we summarize public statements that Sen. Clinton has made on each topic. Under "Abortion", we have ten statements she made in debates, books, and speeches. Clicking on "19 full quotes on Abortion" shows the citations, which are all to publicly-available sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.5.24.11 (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The information your site presents is, as you mentioned, publicly available information. There's no good reason for Wikipedia to promote a commercial site. On the other hand, it looks as if links to your site have been added by a variety of editors, and that the site is organized well and has lot of good info. For that reason, I'm not going to go back and delete every link to your site. It is, however, frowned upon here to (1) add links to your own site especially where it appears that a user's edits consist of nothing but adding links to the same site. In other words, please do not assign your staff to systematically add links to every article. If 3rd party editors feel that the the link is of value to a particular article, I'm sure they will add it. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider having a look at the articles T. S. Wiley and Wiley Protocol? We have only one editor, and he has demonstrated considerable bias (as well as admitting it in a talk page). I've made some reasonable suggestions which he has ignored but I can't edit the pages directly as I am COI. Thanks. Neil Raden 21:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nraden (talk • contribs)
It would be easier for me to help if you provided more information on the nature of the dispute. 17:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Question from the user formerly known as 68.192.30.12
You complained about my links. I don't understand why. The only links I posted to my site (which is completely NOT commercial in nature and has no advertising at all) were reviews (with photos) of two restaurants: Daniel and Per Se. I thought reviews were acceptable and since there aren't very many with high quality photos, that you would welcome them.
Secondly, you (or someone else) removed my addition of information regarding the limitations of the Lexus navigation system that was added to the "Lexus" entry. The link I posted there was to someone else's petition www.lexusoverride.com. Potential buyers have the right to know that hundreds of people object to the restrictions and, in many cases, were mislead. It seems unfair that there is a section extolling the wonders of the navigation system but my attempt to add a single paragraph citing how users don't universally like the "feature" it removed. This is a very serious issue and it should not be censored.
What about the subtopic regarding the limitations (intentionally imposed) by the Lexus navigation system. Forget the links, isn't it being objective to include the fact that not everyone thinks that this is a good idea (actually, I've talked to many owners and haven't found any who think it should exist!) Wikipedia isn't a promotional tool for Lexus either. It shouldn't simply be a version of their sales brochure. Shouldn't it be balanced? Shouldn't the section on technology include mention that Lexus intentionally limits the function of the system? This is especially important because they don't bother to tell prospective buyers until after the sale!
As to the links, isn't a petition regarding a car maker a reasonable thing to link to? It isn't my blog I linked to.
Finally, what about restaurant reviews? There were only two. Both of these are very high-end NYC restaurants. As I said, my site is completely non-commercial, without any advertising. Isn't it appropriate for reviews to be linked from a page describing a restaurant? That seems pretty basic?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by X022098 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I understand you correctly, the link isn't the problem. The problem is that I put it there as the owner of the site. Right?
Also, regarding Lexus, I still don't get the distinction between a petition as opposed to news. Are hundreds of angry users less valid than a news article? So, if I persuaded a media outlet to focus on the problem, that story would be acceptable to link to? I don't see the distinction. After all, the media is never biased!
Regarding the restaurant reviews, the issue is is not only conflict-of-interest, but also WP:Notability. Reviews are acceptable in some cases, but are from major publications. Regarding the Lexus stuff, I'm just following Wikipedia policies. I highly doubt a car shopper is going to use Wikipedia as their sole resource; most would probably rely on car magazines, Consumer Reports, Edmunds, etc. where such subjective information would be more appropriate. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It still seems unfair to me that the Lexus section is, what amounts to a beatification of Lexus and their cars. If you are going to tell part of the story, I'd think that a single sentence or two saying something like, "Lexus has designed the navigation system to restrict its use while the vehicle is in motion. This limitation extends to the front seat passenger as well." This seems fair to me. Would a statement like that be in order?
Thanks again for explaining all this.
-Jeff X02209821:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question from pinballwizard51
I recently edited the page on Ted Kennedy, but you removed my changes. I looked into it, and I understand why you undid the heading edits. But why did you remove the "legacy" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinballwizard51 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi- this is my first time as a user to Wiki so I didn't realize I did anything wrong (I don't even know if I am doing this Talk thing right so I apologize if not! And I didn't even notice your messages until just now. I do interviews with well known figures who are promoting good causes for Feminist.com, which is a non-profit organization, and just tried to add links to those interviews for the appropriate celebrities, such as Alice Walker, Jane Fonda, etc since I thought they contained important insights and information and were good references for people since these interviews were so recent. I see that other people have posted links to some of my interviews elsewhere on Wiki. Am I just not allowed to do it myself? Thanks for your response and I apologize for any misunderstanding of Wiki rules. I use Wiki all the time and appreciate your work! Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbsinger (talk • contribs) 00:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you create an account and do nothing but add links, it sets off "spam" alarms. It's also a conflict of interest to add links to your own site/articles. It's fine if others add them in the course of expanding articles. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please restore the lasik contribution I recently posted. Yes it is cut and pasted, but there is no copyright infringement as I created the text and I own the copyright.
Craigbergermd16:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just now finding that I've been temporarily blocked from wikipedia (for some reason, the notice shows up on my laptop, but not my desktop browser). While I understand the need to prevent self promotion, what I don't understand is the seemingly arbitrary way in which links to external interviews are selected for deletion. Pink Raygun only added links to interviews for which the interview subject themself put links on their own website/blog - in some cases, in a "permanent" location (Nicki Clyne comes to mind).
We only added links to interviews, not to opinion pieces. And in most cases, we only added links to interviews where other, earlier and out of date interviews are linked. Is there any way to get links reinstated, especially in those cases where the interview subject continues to promote their interview on their own site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.77.1 (talk • contribs)
Hey Ohnoitsjamie I was wondering if you could give me a bit of help, I need to find out the average amount of time it takes for the rollback function to execute. Could you do a few experiments for me? You can use My sandbox. Just roll back a few changes and count how many seconds it takes from the time you click the button till it loads the page. Extreme accuracy like a stopwatch is not required, but would be appreciated. Thanks for the help if you decide to give it -Icewedge17:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now's not a good time for me to do it (I'm doing some work-related things, which are going to get more demanding soon). However, I'm not sure how meaningful any metric will be; so many variables (my browser and setup, and more importantly, the load on the wikipedia server at any given time). For example, let's say someone has recently spammed the same link 30 times. Some days, I can hit the rollback links 30 times in a row without it even rendering the result page, but other times, I'm not fast enough. For what purpose are you trying to determine an average? OhNoitsJamieTalk17:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to figure out how much faster it is then manual undo or script assisted reversion. On my machine takes 15-25 seconds to rollback a page with WP:TW. On another wiki at which I am a sysop the rollback executes in 2 seconds. I was just wondering if it was as fast here. -Icewedge18:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean my admin rollback? Mine is pretty fast, usually less than a few seconds. FWIW, I have a 5 Mbps broadband connection with a new heavy-duty hardware setup.
I added the link to CONELRAD's DAISY page (and other related pages) because Wikipedia is rife with misinformation about this spot and our site is fully footnoted and accurate. Please DO NOT delete my additions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.117.223 (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried adding the LASIK safety link 'safeguardyoursight.com' to the LASIK page this morning and it was rapidly removed. I realize that this site is a private MD's creation, but it has more evidence-based information regarding the refractive hazards of LASIK than virtually any other single site on the web. It addresses a very real public health concern regarding the 'Refractive Surprise' following post-LASIK cataract surgery, and, in my opinion, it represents a valuable public service message, albeit in a privately developed format.
There are several other private external LASIK links on the page, and I feel that Safeguard Your Sight is at least as informative as any of these: http://www.lasikconsumerreport.com/lcr.html is a commercial for a private MD's book and includes direct links to private practice website, http://www.agingeye.net/lasik/lasik.php is another private MD's book commercial, and http://www.agingeye.net/lasik/lasik.php is a for-fee forum. Certainly, although these are all information sources for LASIK patients, they are not purely philanthropy.
I urge you to consider reinstating the link to safeguardyoursight.com. It is at least as worthy for LASIK candidates to learn from as your other external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deichenb (talk • contribs) 18:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recently added a page that had been previously deleted; your message in re-deleting it advised me to seek an independent review; having carefully read the policy ("Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look"), I'm asking you to take a second look at the page and its inclusion in Wikipedia. I understand that the previous page created was a marketing vehicle and my intention is not to re-create this, but rather to provide a factual entry about a legitimate company. Obopay has been covered by numerous independent news organizations (a partial list is available at https://www.obopay.com/corporate/inTheNews.shtml) and Obopay is a company providing mobile payment services, a category currently covered by Wikipedia. I would be pleased to provide any additional outside references that might be required. I'd very much appreciate your taking another look--thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emitchell62000 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand. As defined ("Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight") the following sources would fit the description: American Banker magazine, Conde Nast Portfolio, Chicago Sun-Times, Reuters and the Wall Street Journal. There are others, of course, but these are the "biggies" who have independently reported on Obopay, rather than those that have simply republished press releases. Given that these are non-trivial sources, does this change the situation? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emitchell62000 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The publications you mention all qualify, as long as their coverage of Obopay is more than a line or two (i.e., non-trivial). I'll restore that page now, then you can go ahead and add the references. Thanks, OhNoitsJamieTalk16:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you--and I will do! The links to some of the articles (Wall Street Journal most notably) require a subscription to view the entire article--but I'm assuming the link to the Journal's site is still preferable to linking to the PDF on Obopay's site, correct? Thanks so muchf or all your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emitchell62000 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Massage
Hi Jamie
I am writing concerning the Copyright notice I recieved from you. I did not write the sections you are refering to and I am trying to improve this horrible article in which I have been working on for about two days straight. I have never even seen the article that you refered me to. I will take out all the information pertaining to the copyrightproblems, but I would like for you to understand that I have been doing a lot of work on this article and the mistakes were made before, I even started on this article. Thanks a lot Bronayur21:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've found at least three different websites that you cut-and-paste text from, which is a violation of Wikipedia rules. You're going to need to start over and make sure anything you change is in your own words. Wikipedia's policy on copyrights is very strict, and violations are not tolerated. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please just tell me what I did, I have been working on this article for two days, I would just like to revert the things that you are talking about, don't you see the improvments I have made? Please, I am a very dedicated wiki editor by no means a begginer.Bronayur21:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should know better not to cut-and-paste text into Wikipedia. It's pretty simple; I've taken the first sentence from random paragraphs and done Google searches on them; from there, I find a website where one or more paragraphs have been directly copied. You know where you copied the text from. It's shouldn't be my job to sort through it. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that this is not the information that I mergered into the old article from types of massage? I seriously haven't been writing any information hardly, most I have been merging information from other sources. I totally swear, I feel like I am going to cry, I am not doing this on purpose...Bronayur22:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry. The cut-and-pastes were not from you. I took a closer look at the diffs, and they were actually pre-existing. (Thus, it's possible that others had copied-and-pasted Wikipedia). My bad, continue the good work. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was re-reading the prostate massage article to try and find a link that I had previously used to get to an article on the subject. I was unable to find the link, and suspecting that it had been deleted, I checked the page history. I was able to get the link, so all's well... just wondering if this was a temporary thing or if the site is some kind of a scam or what. The link was to this page: http://www.vibereview.com/browse/page/Prostate+Stimulation:+The+Whys+and+Hows
Please let me know! Thinking it was a scam, I googled 'prostate stimulation' and was surprised to see that this page came up first. I'm so confused!!
The links were removed because an editor was spamming them across multiple subjects. If you found it that easily on Google, there's no compelling reason for the Wikipedia entry to include it. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie,
Thanks for your reply. I guess the compelling reason for it to be included is just that it's a really useful article, and when I came back several months later looking for it, it was no longer here. Anyway - lesson learned - next time I find something useful, I'll bookmark it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.243.237 (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the Tour Brief links, obviously because there are lodges on the page. Are you going to remove the NTB pages and Travel News Namibia as well? They both charge for presence on their pages. Would it help if I put it under news? Tour Brief also has a very strong current news component.
Could you stop reversing my edits? You don't even give me time to explain my changes on the discussion page. My latest edit kept all the old references and yet you reversed it under false pretenses. I did not subtract any info. I added new info and rearranged the text. --JGoldwater00:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. There's some vote rigging going on here by obvious socks in order to allow a 'keep' when the subject is clearly non-notable. I think someone also had to revert an edit which changed all the votes to KEEP at one point. Thanks. Ref(chew)(do)15:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence that they're not? Obviously you don't know the situation, so unless you personally know the IP, please stay out of it. Thanks. Erryday I'm19:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on contributions and edit history, I'm confident that HuStL_MO is a sockpuppet of Burgz33, an account that has been blocked since April for extended personal attacks and incivility, after multiple warnings and a first block. Ohnoitsjamie, I have your user talk page on my watch list and just noticed his recent activity. Just a heads up. --Quartet19:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back yet again as User:D1R3C7. Joined day after HuStL_MO was blocked. Has made edits to St. Louis Blues, House of Pain, Reto Von Arx, Soul Assassins - nearly all the usual pages. --Quartet21:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, my questions are now getting to the individual that is deleting the QueryHorse article (communications through WikiPedia are new to me and I'm finding little info in the Help system on how to do it -- if this is not correct, I apologize in advance).
I added the QueryHorse article several months ago because it is a search engine focused on the horse world provided free as a public service. It is the largest equine search facility indexing millions of documents.
Yesterday, I logged in to update its screen shot which was no longer current. When I did, I received a message indicating there were no links to this article and that it would be removed. Therefore, I added a link to several other horse topics so Wiki users would find and be able to use this informational resource. Several minutes later, the article and links to it were removed from WikiPedia. I attempted to contact your talk page, but received no response; this is a second attempt.
I have read the criteria for inclusion of articles and QueryHorse appears to fit them. It provides a free, public service and is the largest portal of its kind. Why is it being removed? Is this not of value to the public? Is not its service of value to the public? And is not that premise even what WikiPedia itself is based upon?
Smile a little, smile a little, all along the road;
Every life must have its burden, every heart its load.
Why sit down in gloom and darkness with your grief to sup?
As you drink Fate's bitter tonic, smile across the cup.
Smile upon the troubled pilgrims whom you pass and meet;
Frowns are thorns, and smiles are blossoms, oft for weary feet.
Do not make the way seem harder by a sullen face;
Smile a little, smile a little, brighten up the place.
Smile upon your undone labour; not for one who grieves
O'er his task waits wealth or glory; he who smiles achieves.
Though you meet with loss and sorrow in the passing years,
Smile a little, smile a little... even through your tears!
It looks pretty complete. I haven't seen much from him lately, but then again I had taken to ignoring him. As far as I could see all he really wanted was attention. After the inital blocking it turned into him making edits, getting no attention and then going to somebodys talk page and making "look at me" edits. CambridgeBayWeather(Talk)16:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. I think some of his recent activity was related to another user creating impersonator accounts of him (pointing to his MySpace page). He kept saying they were "sockpuppets" but wouldn't give any further info, because doing so would reveal that he was circumventing the block on his original account. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise that there were newer creations made attacking Burgz33. I was aware of User:DannyBurgz but I thought he had been blocked as should any others created for attack purposes. If more appear atticking Burgz33 it might be necessary to look for the puppetmaster behind them. CambridgeBayWeather(Talk)17:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please tell me what is the reason for removal of the link? The website is global defence featuring pictures, news and dfiscussions on all countries including Iran so I don't know what prompted you to remove the link.
Hi! Since you were the last admin who performed an rv on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh page, I'd like to ask for a spot of help/advice.
Another user, Bakasuprman is constantly umdoing changes I made on the highly sensitive article.I made sure ALL the edits were referenced. I left a message for him on his talk page as well. But it's evident that his POV must stand and factuality and neutrality be damned. A lil help please.
--EGGman6420:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup templates
Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup"etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, RichFarmbrough, 19:25 23 September2007 (GMT).
You reverted vandalism by 70.251.198.183 on the Trevor page and then last a comment on my IP page (60.240.66.170) saying you'd done it. Actually, I'd made some very legitimate edits to the Trevor page and you posted to the wrong IP address! (Sorry for not putting links to the diff pages and all that jazz I really don't know how to do it - the diff of your revision is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trevor&diff=159288946&oldid=159288304.) You obviously do fantastic work removing vandalism but I thought I better bring to your attention this error.--60.240.66.17010:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your reversions point to faulty URLs...
I have been cleaning up articles linking to Observer.com that use outdated URLs -- eg. Melissa Lafsky's page. The links on such pages -- eg. Lafsky's -- point to pages that do not exist now that you have reverted my edits.
Hi. I responded on the Discussion page, too. I have yet to find the articles page you referenced. I attempted to enter Concerned Citizens Council under "Organizations": the Concerned Citizens Council is a designated general purpose committee registered with the State of Texas. The Concerned Citizens Council maintains a local message board as a public service. It is the only local message board for the Big Spring, Texas area of which I'm aware.
This forum is linked from the Concerned Citizen Council's website www.bigspringfreedom.com The Concerned Citizens Council also publishes News of Big Spring. To my knowledge, there is no advertising on the aforementioned websites or in the printed newsletter, and all of these are free to the users/ readers. The Concerned Citizens Council is actively advocating for safer, less toxic streets and ADA compliance, as well as circulating a petition to amend the Big Spring city charter with Initiative and Referendum language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.98.87 (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jamie, I am wondering why you removed my talk entry to wikipedia Douche? As far as I can tell, I did not violate any rules. If you could explain your action I would appreciate it.
Ok, thanks for the non-answer and threatening me. At least I know the company I may be trying to keep. But do not worry I will not continue with that line of thought. This is the end of it.
Hello Jamie, I am new to this editing thing and am wondering about an edit you made on the Haydn Porter page. It seems you removed a link to the website www.marksfriggin.com on the grounds that it constituted spam. I am not sure that I agree with this, because that site is held in high-esteem by Howard Stern fans as a reliable source of info about the shenanigans on the show. So, if someone wished to verify some information on the Haydn Porter page, one could easily click on www.marksfriggin.com and get an accurate account of the events on the show. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, if so please elucidate.
I'd noticed that the site was full of ads...that was the main reason I deleted it. If it is notable among Stern fans as you say, I'd have no objection to you re-adding it. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked Question
I've been blocked from editing the Holland Hall School wiki entry which is fine. However, this is a pre-k through 12 school, so I think it's prudent to remove a link that is only two clicks away from the Playboy website. Minors do not need to be able to look up notable alums and be directed to inappropriate sites for their age. If the alum wants to add their name, they should use their real name (not Playboy name) and not have it link so easily to an inappropriate site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pt2007 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it not censorship when you remove my absolutely true comment that no one by the name of Haydn Porter graduated from Holland Hall? You need to step back and think about what is fair in this situation and removing that post was censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pt2007 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Ohnoitsjamie, I know you have helped edit the Lexus article periodically in the past. Lately the article has had few to no contributors, maybe because as it became GA-listed most users did not consider a need to improve it as much (compared to a year before when a rewrite was requested, to which I contributed). However, in the past week 2 IPs and one recent user have complained that the article is too positive towards Lexus. They are all demanding that 'negative' information be added. From their edit records, I can see that these three editors have moderate to very little experience editing Wiki.
I think it is absolutely fair to put good developments and bad, however not everything in a car article is necessarily either. I have already trimmed a number of statements and details, and adjusted the section on Lexus' future ambitions by two paragraphs to include more criticisms/difficulties for the brand.
However, it is difficult IMO to make changes with a decent consensus, when there are very few contributors. I have asked several trusted automotive contributors, but they have not responded/are very busy. I am concerned that there cannot be a balanced improvement to the article if the adjustments made are simply to bash Lexus. Ultimately I want to make this article, like other articles I have extensively rewritten (cars, airplanes, movies, etc.) as encyclopaedic as possible. The current version was praised by a number of users, so clearly it was doing something right. However, there is always room for improvement.
Will you be willing to help me make this article better, hopefully to satisfy NPOV requirements? Perhaps you could review it? Or be an active participant in some of the editing? I would like to improve the article as much as possible, but there have been few if no specific suggestions despite my asking them, and it's difficult to build a consensus when one is the only one editing. It's easy to criticize. Enigma354200219:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be easy to find automotive magazine articles that indicate that Lexus's aren't usually as nimble in the twisties as their German rivals, and that in the past, some models (especially the ES series) were not distinguished enough from their Toyota-market cousins. I'm a regular reader of numerous auto magazines and websites, and those are the only negatives I can recall hearing about Lexus in general. It's not necessary to have a "negative" section equal in size to a positive section if few references to negatives can be found (and BMW forums don't count). I'll be busy most of today, but I'll see if I can contribute this week. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk19:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your quick reply!!! For the past five days I have felt like I was in the wilderness a bit here, maybe everyone was busy working or on vacation or something. I agree with you, those are the most common criticisms that some reviewers have stated. Hopefully those changes will help placate some of the article naysayers, although some seem to want a negatives section. That IMO would simply become a repository of disproportionate criticism. I will research and add sourced materials on your suggestions. Thanks a lot. Enigma354200219:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just one other detail, so far the article 'dispute'/suggestions have centered almost entirely on the talk page. That is an area where I have been asking around for contributors to voice their views on the pos. vs. neg. , etc. Enigma354200219:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening, Ohnoitsjamie. I'm sorry to have to do this, but I have documented the recent pattern of troublesome editing and unwanted behavior here: [2]. I have chosen to report this to you at this time. For now, I wish to report this in a private way so as to not raise the tension and conflict. Thanks for your attention, understanding, and assistance. Enigma354200203:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, did you receive my message? I realize that my list was rather long-winded, but I would like to correct some of the inaccuracies that have been introduced into the article, yet I am afraid they will be reverted again by this user who evidently stands in judgment of every edit to this one article, and will not tolerate another POV. Enigma354200223:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read through your list; I think you did an excellent job of addressing the issues. I looked at some of the recent edits between you and the other editor you refer too...looks like you're making some progress in working out a compromise, though it does seem like the other editor has an axe to grind with the brand. OhNoitsJamieTalk23:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for the reply. I will proceed with some edits. I am still afraid though that they will be reverted in another case of tendentious editing and POV pushing. I really could use some input on this because otherwise the user's editing and comments made seem to be assuming bad faith or biased views. Do you think it is fair also to call this user out on the biased comments that are being made, by listing them on the talk page? Enigma354200223:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could collect them on your L_article_edits page, in the event that we have to take the issue to an WP:RFC. In the meantime, the best way to continue to handle it is to be a stickler about material being (reliably) sourced, insisting that sourced material not twist the original intent of the source. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk23:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really busy with work today. I don't think there's anything regarding the Lexus page that merits an alert, but if you that you need additional help with a content dispute, filing an WP:RFC would be a start. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for helping with the cleanup on Quizzing in India. It does require a bit of cleanup and there's a few people around who like to highlight themselves a bit, but not all that much of a big issue. There's a few other articles I edit such as Indian Rebellion of 1857 that could do with a few admins hanging out over there - tendentious edits etc :) srs06:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohnoitsjamie, you recently made a change to a header I left on a user talk page. I, and a number of people from Wikiproject Spam, use this technique to assist with catching spammers who use multiple accounts. This way the linksearch tool will pick up the talk page usage and we can track down previous spammers who have added the same link. Over time this has helped us develop a better picture about behavior and track more persistent and sophisticated spammers. From watching SEO forums we haven't seen evidence that these talk page links are seen as a source of traffic (though if you know otherwise that would be good to hear about). It would be helpful if you could leave the links unaltered. Thanks -- SiobhanHansa17:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just Saying hello and thanks for keeping Wikipedia.org safe from vandalism and threats of fire. It takes a certain kind of hero to not only weed out threat but also uphold morality standards. God Bless.
Hi I am IP 69.233.124.254. Thanks. I found the person responsible and will let them know, thanks.
Fallon, Nevada: Cancer Cluster
You contributed to the Nevada article, so I thought you could help. This news article writes
"Arsenic in the water, tungsten in the air, polonium in wells, underground atomic testing to the east - all have been reported by the media. The entry for "Fallon, Nevada" on Wikipedia, a popular online encyclopedia, mentions the leukemia cluster. It's no wonder some outsiders unfortunately perceive our community as unhealthy."
I took a quick look at the cancer cluster section. The statements made in that section seem to be supported by the cited NIH article. I'm not an epidemiologist, though.... Thanks, OhNoitsJamieTalk16:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please revert fully
You seem to be an established user so I'm not going to Template:un-r you, but please be sure you revert vandalism and poor additions fully, such as those made to death recently. There's nothing worse than a vandal or POV pusher having some of their additions to the article not reverted systematically. Richard00123:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was another editor's edit between the string of bad edits; something very easy to miss that I do catch on other reverts. However, I don't think there's any reason to warn the reverter in this case; just fix what needs to be fixed. Thanks, OhNoitsJamieTalk01:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I discovered today that someone who shares an IP address with me vandalized some pages. I just created my very own account, am I alright now? I don't want to be suspended or kicked out or whatever because of what someone else did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Losk75 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you've created an account, you should be fine. Your account won't be penalized for the actions of someone editing anonymously from the same IP address. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk14:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and references vs. Advertising
I placed external links in the Mediated divorce section of the Divorce entry and they were removed as advertising. In fact they were the sources and references for the stated material to confirm that it was indeed factual. What is the best way to link to a webpage when citing it as a source? I don't want the entry later removed because it is not sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgeorget (talk • contribs) 17:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up, but the recent vandalism to this article stems from the forums at Bodybuilding.com. See [forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=5028943&highlight=wikipedia] [forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=4423183&highlight=wikipedia+coleman]. I've reverted all the vandalism in that article for now. --Yankees7618:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What did your last edit summary mean? It appears I may actually have had 4 reverts, but I did try to revert myself the last time, be adding the summary back in, unchanged. I don't see why my other edits to the article - which were removing a mostly-redundant paragraph, a redundant commented-out section, and some minor edits - should be reverted. These edits had not been discussed.
Note that I didn't make all those edits at the same time, but you first reverted them at the same time.
I'm wondering why you jumped in to this dispute apparently without looking at the talk page. Yes, I se now that I misinterpreted consensus somewhat (as did he), but it would be preferable for you to explain you reverts on a subject in contention like this. The way, the truth, and the light03:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ohnoitsjamie, first of all thanks from my side, the other user hadn't even cared to leave a note in talk page. I thought i would say this in this talk page section itself.
Those commented-out section removals should be done after carefully looking into, because such commenting will be part of some long term hidden agenda :) Lara_bran05:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. I've been editing the talk page, and I just started a new section. The commented-out section looks like junk from a long time ago that's now redundant.
Sorry, i once thought saying that, that it is not necessarily your agenda. But removing that without thinking would be that we are aiding "their" agenda who commented it out. Cheers! Lara_bran09:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ohnoitsjamie, try padding = 10px for these comments wont touch boundary lines on sides. Hope me not overusing your talkpage. Lara_bran09:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that anyone who is the victim of lots of vandalism is usually doing very annoying, often incorrect or pointless, editing of Wikipedia articles. But then, I suppose there are lots of people in the world with overly inflated senses of self-worth. It's kind of repugnant! Rockdiedout08:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop stalking me "Jamie." You deliberately found an article I edited and just undid my editing because you assume the blog I posted isn't notable. It's just as notable as other blogs listed and would be beneficial for people to see. You're just editing "political blog" out of spite. Then you go and warn me. People like you are ruining Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockdiedout (talk • contribs) 20:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you removed my links to the Sierra Club and RYO Magazine when they were put up in relevant locations. Could you please review the links a bit more clearly next time before you remove them. A link to a site that has extreme relevance should not be removed. --Mrtobacco21:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you tell me the reason to delete my articles, without giving prior warning ? becuase I spend my time to create this, I think Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is why I subscribe, I never expect this thing.--Canberaguy15:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments and warnings to me based on my changes in the laptop section are unwarranted, unfair, and completely false. You claim I am inserting my own VIEW POINTS into the article, and act like you can give me a warning. My EXACT WORDS the first time was a section on newer technology in the laptop scene (what kind of specs you are likely to find and rough price ranges). T hen I came back and added something else after I got that warning "Laptop battery life can generally last from 2-4 hours" You had NO RIGHT to remove my text and claim it was based off a specific point. What it's not an OPINION on battery life. STATISTICALLY battery laptop life is 2-6 hours how can you claim I was injecting a view point into something that is fact. You did this to me 2 times, and you had no warranted, or halfway fair reason of doing it. To be honest aside from this 90% of the stuff in wikipedia is SUBJECT TO OPINION. When you read listings on a word, I see personal opinions and specific viewpoints all over the place... Aside from that nothing I EVER put is based on my own opinion!!! On top of this I just noticed what you do. I spent hours last night going through various articles contributing and you maliciously went to every single article I changed and either reverted the changes, or deleted what I added...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Businessman332211 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am not doing something right. Everytime I post anywhere even on something I know a lot about, one person or another changes what I put. What can I do to post them properly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Businessman332211 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ohnoitsjamie is a Wikipedia administrator, and has a solid reputation for being fair with regards to Wikipedia's core policies and warning users. It's never a bad idea to brush up on your knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when you receive warnings from other editors, and in nearly all instances, warnings that are given are justified. Use them as a learning experience, rather than assuming that other editors are purposely out to get you. In your case, please look over Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy, as well as our No original research policy. These are two of three key content policies and jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable on Wikipedia and are often extremely helpful when determining why someone undoes your edits. --Quartet15:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Quartet. To specifically address Businessman's concerns; all material in Wikipedia must be verifiable. It's not sufficient to declare "I'm an expert, so I know what I'm talking out." Regarding a laptop battery life; if you can find a recent survey from a reliable source that supports that contention, that's fine. As Quartet suggested, it would be a good idea for you to read up on Wikipedia's policies and procedures before accusing experienced users of "malicious" editing. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your right, so I apologize. I was unaware of the reason, I was also annoyed by other people. It seemed that night everything I changed everywhere was changed back. I changed some stuff under halo, and someone flew threw and changed them back. They were blantant misuse of word. For example I replaced the word "ring world" with the word halo (based on the novel and the game that is it's actual name), there is no such thing as "ring world" in halo. So I changed that and within a few hours someone changed it back and one thing led to another and I was annoyed. So I apologize for my behaviour I will read that section you linked me very carefully and make sure I understand it, and Ohnoit'sjamie I apologize for whatI said and the way I acted. Businessman33221117:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC) -- Sorry if that was in correct i used 4 hyphens to "tag" it as someone asked me too.[reply]
Not to be picky, but my edit looked cleaner than what you put back. I think this might be a case of ignore all rules, since the rules say that Wikipedia is not a news service. On the other hand, if you remove the evacuation notice, maybe people might die. So I'm going to revert back to my edit, since it is more visible. Thanks, Project Coordinates21:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is indeed not a news service, and I highly doubt the Wikipedia entry on Fallbrook is where people are going to look for evacuation information. Do not add the content again. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you removed the external link to the article "How much caffeine is in chocolate?" [4]. I understand that this article is to a commercial site, but I can say that I am in no way affiliated with the web-site or Amano Chocolate. I found this article when I was doing research and thought it would be a good reference source. It is well written, referenced, and accurate as compared with many of the other articles I found through google. The top ranked google article (search: chocolate caffeine) returns a page that says there is no caffeine in chocolate (http://www.xocoatl.org/caffeine.htm).
Jamie, you reverted my work on Tobacco without noticing that I was merely restating what was already in the article towards the bottom and what the links said.
Trust me - I'm not vandalizing that article - I helped build it! I lived 'the tobacco life'. Would you mind if I reposted my work? --Mrtobacco03:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for an article in Wikipedia which focuses on the effects divorce can cause to a family (e.g., the father might get custody of some of the children and the mother might get some, etc.). I tried the Divorce page, but it didn't appear to mention this anywhere (though I only looked at the table of contents.). Since you've edited that page at least a few times, judged by it's history, could you please show me to an article in Wikipedia which does mention this sort of thing? Thanks! Wilhelmina Will02:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have an article that meets your criteria. Effects of divorce is largely a combination of culture and law, so it's not easy to treat it as a subject without talking about specific cultures/nations/laws/circumstances, etc. OhNoitsJamieTalk03:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. We have come to the conclusion at the BNP article that the BNP are fascist, as stated and sourced in the infobox there. Not identifying with fascism is not necessary for them to be labelled as fascist, surely? Sinthesizer19:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could find any number of people who would consider the Bush administration to be fascist (or Hillary to be the spawn of the devil, for that matter); that's not a good reason to categorize them as such. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to adding a subheading with something to the affect of "groups frequently accused of/labeled as Fascist/Fascism," since there maybe be few groups that self-identify that way, even if their platform mirrors tenets commonly associated with Fascism. (Of course, entries under that subheading should be sourced as well). OhNoitsJamieTalk19:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other links on these sites, for places like SLKWorld and Benzworld are for web sites that display paid advertisements and also have paid subscriptions. MBRoadsters.com is a FREE site with no subscriptions given for forums and information for Mercedes-Benz Roadsters. It is also a site that meets Mercedes-Benz requirements as being a helpful site to their product's owners.
This site is a community for those cars, and not a money making venture. It is ramping up with many articles of how to fix things, and about the history. Why would it not belong in there, and money making sites that Mercedes-Benz does NOT appove of, especially ones using thier trademarks to make money, be allowed in?
1. The store is currently closed pending final approval by Mercedes Benz.
2 The store will be selling Polo shirts with the Roadsters logo and other logos approved by Mercedes Benz. These logos will be sewn on by a seniors group in Texas with the money from the shirts going to pay their material costs and any extra going as a donation for their not-for-profit senior education center.
_-_A_Little_Coaxing_(1890).jpg)