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.
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!
Talk archives
PLEASE LEAVE NEW COMMENTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE.
Ohnoitsjamie: (Again, hoping I'm doing this right...) Just wanted to thank you for unblocking me, I really do appreciate it. I'm still reading and mostly lost, however, and I was wondering if there are consultants that I could offer to pay for an hour of their time on the phone related to the whole Wikipedia movement. I really like and respect what you and everyone else involved is doing; it's really quite amazing. I come from academia, and probably have a lot to contribute, but I'm not sure and would certainly benefit from being able to speak with someone the old fashioned way. Any thoughts? Mandelman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandelman (talk • contribs) 00:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you make some edits to {{User WikiProject Spam}}? I tagged the talk page with {{editprotected}}; but when I dug into it further, I realized that the userbox isn't protected directly - it's being indirectly protected because it's used on your user page which was protected with cascading page protection. I was waiting for someone to respond to the editprotected request - but thought I would ask you as well, since you're the protecting admin. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I made some adjustments to my usepage protection that hopefully fixed the cascade problem. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! That resolved it, so I was able to make the changes myself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Jamie! Would I be able to get a copy of this deleted article? --otherlleft (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, see User:Otherlleft/Adam_Tritt. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you extend protection a bit longer? Vandalism got pretty heavy as soon as it expired. Thanks!--otherlleft (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Treat it like linkspam and be merciless. :P --GraemeL (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I really should shorten my archiving intervals. One of these days I'll set up on autoarchive. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...I got an email too. I've got the page watchlisted and am keeping an eye. Frank | talk 21:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already blocked by another admin. Frank | talk 21:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I got one too. He's being CU'd at the moment. John Reaves 21:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here was me thinking I was in an exclusive club. --GraemeL (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I, for one, welcome our new meta overlords. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I got one, but looks like it was sent before email was disabled. Honestly. What a load of shit....! GbT/c 21:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Jamie! I tried, and sorta succeeded, to get a page onto the whitelist here, but the complexities of the code thwarted the admin who agreed to it. He suggested turning to the technical village pump, but no one ever responded. Would you be willing to give it a go?--otherlleft (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In your business I suspect you missed this request earlier - you're generally excellent at replies. Is the above something you feel you can assist with?--otherlleft (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that, I must have missed this earlier. I made tweak attempt at the whitelist, but I haven't had a chance to test it yet. I notice the whitelist code for other suite101 sites is a bit more complicated because they're using Cold Fusion on the site, which in their case, hides the file name being server. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking into it. Who would have thought it could be so complicated??--otherlleft (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say that there's not much information?. If you find a website of this park with more information about the park, said it to me, and I'll put it the wikipedias as external links, but because it's is form Barcelona's Council, there is not any official page, or any page dedicated only to this park.
And it's useful, because every day, at least twenty people visited it (from wikipedia), and they not only visit, they see an average of twelve pages per visit.
So I think that you didn't know the situation about this important tourist point of Barcelona, it's not as Sagrada familia, another work of Gaudí, witch has a official website.
I can't say you that you must put it (you are an admin, and I'm an user), but I can explain the situation of this website. And I make this because is my fault, and this website is here because I put it in many wikiepdias, because I didn't know that all this would happen.--RobCatalà (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not the place to promote your Google-ad laden website. Period. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also split up into small bundles of information on each page to maximize ad hits. The content is no where near good enough to justify linking to it anyway. --GraemeL (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok don't add to wikiepdia this webiste if you don't consider it's important, but don't say that I only want to ear money because you don't know the situation.
- I'm a student (catalan) that as a secondary school project (two years, like the degree one, but for secondary school) I make this website, and I don't separate the information to earn more money, I make it because it's more useful for the visitor, I recognize that there could be more information, but sorry I'm not a professional as you think you are, and I made what I can.
- I thought wikipedians were another type of people, I like too much the purpose of wikipedia, but now I've seen that the administrators of the English wikiepdias are as what you've demonstrated.
- Is possible that I'll edit in the Spanish wikiedpia, but, not here, please, because your and administrators, could you erase this user RobCatalà , and now I think that I've waste lot of time doing Interwikis, wits this user, and all this work for nothing. It's very good to have bots antispam, but if a website is not spam, you should reconsidered, but well, English users are (I won't continue to avoid wasting time. If your are a legal person don't erase this post, It's not spam, or vandalism, but it's important because other people can read it.
- If you think that my reaction is not logical, please read this, if now you go to a page, and make spam, without knowing it, I only put the links in others wikiepdias, because I know that English is the most spoken language in the world, and in all countries there are people who speak it, and a bot undo all, (logical, because is spam) you should think -oh, I should solve this- so I did, I went to the bot page, I talked with the person who controls it, and he agreed me that It was my fault. So I said sorry to everybody, and that I won't make spam again. For the moment a normal thing. But I don't understand that in three seconds a page or a user could be block, but to unblock, you can spend days... So the person who controls the bot said that I should wait an administrator, and wow, this two persons thing that because they don't want, oh, the link can't be in this page. So, good administrators, I don't want to think when you'll have to take important's decisions.
- If you don't understand something sorry but this isn't my language. And remember Ohnoitsjamie or GraemeL delete my user please, and bye for ever. --exRobCatalà (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any Wikipedian has the right to WP:VANISH, but we don't generally delete information unless there is a privacy concern. If you do want your userpage deleted, I will also remove this from my talk page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes one administrator, you, and now, Guy too(influenced by you) but there is another administrator, Stifle, who don't think as you. So if I ask for another opinion don't make someone say what you think (this is normally say Freedom of speech). So please can I ask to Guy to look it as an impartial administrator. And you can look the Spanish wiki, there is another person who think that it's a good website. Thank's--RobCatalà (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found the perfect article (and it's official), take a look to Neutral point of view, I thought that as an administrator, you should know it, but...--RobCatalà (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm well aware of it, having been around here for several years. That policy has nothing to do with my opinion that your site is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Also see our WP:COI policy. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank's for the article, I've read it, you can think that I'm not respecting this rule, but, I can too think that I'm respecting it, so now comes when I say what I think:
- I've read it and I can only compare my situation with:
Self-promotion
Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates.
Examples of these types of material include:
1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).
2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages.
3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.
- But I don't promote any product, because I don't earn money for anything (Google adsense it's not a product, and I won't be never rich by this program, and neither for only an advertisement), so the first one, no. It's not my personal site, it's a site about a park, so the second no. And the third, it's not a material to complement the article (it was written before the website). The only reason to put the link is to give to the reader the possibility to complement the information with another format of information, the website has parts which are much more visual than wikipedia (wikipedia is a encyclopedia, and the website is for the tourist).
- Give me your reason why you think that it's not respecting this rule. Thank's for all.--RobCatalà (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing else to say here. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your own advertising-laden site. Period. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This link is not a "advertising-laden site", if this would be, all internet, incuding google webpage would be advertising-laden site (there are more advertisment links in them than in parkguell's one). So don't close a talk, as a dictatorian person, THIS IS CLOSED, please explain the reason of your opinion, If I made an error (not vandalism, only put links in other wikipeidas) give me the oportunity to solve it, not close talks, or influence other persons. Thanks for your time. (that's the job of administrators)--RobCatalà (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And about the other administrators, yes I asked for more opinions, I didn't look that rule before, so I've said to the others not to answer. (more in Waggers user page. Thank's for all--RobCatalà (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you remember or even still care about this but about a month ago I was trying to edit the article "Dracula". I didn't know what I was doing because I had just started a few minutes before I edited that article. I messed up and I didn't realize that someone had removed my edits so I kept on putting them back. You gave me a last warning for vandalizing. I realized what I did wrong and now I know what I'm doing. So I just wanted to say sorry. I didn't mean to vandalize it was an accident. well sorry.--VampireKen (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Jamie, I told you above where I got them from. Now is it ok if I erase them? or get rid of them? I wanted to ask first. I don't know if I can or not without permission from the person who gave them to me. Thanks!--VampireKen (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. I'm convinced that you're planning on using your account constructively from here on out, so I have no problems with you deleting the warnings. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you please have a look here? Electronic medical record An editor has deleted every instance the term "electronic medical record" in this article and replaced it with another, obscure term that means something different and that may be a company's product name. Ta. Careful Cowboy (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again. Careful Cowboy (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey... saw your edits re: markprindle-dot-com. Yes, tough call, as there could be some value (and he does have a reasonable history). The massive spamming, as well as the fact his status as a "reliable source" was questioned at a FA review, made me lean towards removal. There are still about a hundred or so links left; I've been working away at removing the ones that are just straight review links, but leaving the ones that are incorporated as references within the body of an article. --Ckatzchatspy 04:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a big fan of indie music and a strict advocate against spam, I think that's a pretty good compromise. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear whoever you are
I added a link to some of the articles of wikipedia, which was:
List of Online Translations of the Quran
I believe, I may have added it to more articles than was needed, you should remove it from those articles with which this is not related. But you have deleted it even from the articles titled "Translation of the Quran" and also "List of Translations of the Quran" with which this link is fully compatible.
Kindly, if you have genuine reason then let me know about that. I too don't want to advertise myself on the wikipedia. My intentions are not negative. So kindly either allow me to have this link there, or let me know the reason of deleting it.
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.11.196.112 (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted it per WP:EL policy. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hi. my recent request for losethegame.com to be unblacklisted was declined because you said that the site owner has been spamming links to his site for over 2 years. the admin who declined it suggested i look at whitelisting for specific purposes but before i do that, would it be possible for you to point me to evidence of this spamming (links to diffs?) as it isn't mentioned in the reason for blacklisting. thanks Jessi1989 (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't a good reason to whitelist it either. Check out [1] for starters. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ok, i had a look through his contributions. in february 06 he added his website link to 14 vaguely related articles. although most of his edits are clearly unsuitable for wikipedia, it's not completely random spamming, it looks as if he thinks he's making suitable contributions at least some of the time. obviously i'm not condoning his edits but i wouldn't desbribe them as a "history going back to 2006 of spamming his site to wikipedia". those contribs just show that he did some very minor spamming for a few weeks in 2006. has he been spamming regularly with another account since then? when exactly was the site blacklisted? Jessi1989 (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For several years. I don't feel like digging through the diffs at meta to determine the exact date. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- i looked back through the history and found the diff. it was blacklisted in october last year, not several years ago. so are you claiming that this site was blacklisted in october 2007 for 14 edits that were made by a user that stopped editing in feb 06, over 18 months prior to the blacklisting? are you sure you're not confusing this with another site? Jessi1989 (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, I don't remember the exact date, and don't see why the date is important. The site clearly does not meet WP:EL guidelines, and thus will not be whitelisted. I have nothing further to say about it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
surely my previous post makes it obvious why the date is important. you stated that it has been blacklisted "for several years" and that you couldn't be bothered to determine the exact date. i could be bothered and i found your "several years" statement to be completely false (or at least vastly exaggerated). from what little evidence you have provided, jonty303's spamming clearly wasn't the reason for blacklisting as it was blacklisted 18 months after his last edit. according to the blacklisting guidelines, he should have been blocked first, and if that didn't help it should only have been blacklisted on wikipedia, not the whole of wikimedia. the admin who blacklisted the site states the reason as "encouraging vandalism" and links to a page which doesn't mention wikipedia at all. in response to your second point, i wanted to use the link in a reference not an external link, and since when is not meeting wp:el guidelines reason for a site to be blacklisted? i'm sorry, but you came along to the request for unblacklisting and told the closing admin that this site had been spammed repeatedly since 2006. the admin apparently took your word for this because he declined it per your comment. now you appear unable, or unwilling, to provide any diffs supporting your statement. i can't understand why you are arguing so strongly for this site to remain blacklisted when there seems to be very little reason for it to be blacklisted at all. Jessi1989 (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The images I created, are not photographs. They were created using skill, concentration and time, layer by layer on a vector image creator called Inkscape. Because they are of high quality doesn't mean they are copyright violations and are simply done on photoshop. I would appreciate if you undo the deletion requests. Just because you don't see well created vector images everyday, doesn't mean when you see one it is a fake.--LBelle (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe you. It's obvious to me that you took professional porn shots and ran them through a "oil painting" filter in Photoshop or Paint.Net. I will not remove the deletion requests. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, look like pretty clear derivative works to me. Not compatible with free licenses. Cool Hand Luke 23:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohnoitsjamie. The inclusion of The National Christmas Tree Association (NCTA) requires that non members of this PAID group must also be included. NCTA farms must PAY $200+ to be a member and get their tree farm listed. The Christmas Tree Farm Network (CTFN) is for those tree farms that believe that finding a Christmas tree is important public information without paying those very high membership fees.
There are over 600 Real Christmas Tree Farms listed on the CTFN (you deleted) in nearly all 50 states and fewer farmers are on the NCTA web site.
I have no problem with both sites being removed or both should be listed. It has nothing to do with SEO pagerank but fairness to the smaller Christmas tree farms.Aanrwebmaster (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to remove links. Wikipedia has way too many. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have unjustly deleted my addition. Explain your actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetodid (talk • contribs) 18:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your contribution was unsourced, original research. Do not add it again, or make similar WP:POINT edits as you were blocked for in the past. The next block will be longer. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because I did not provide a source I have become a Vandal. Very well then, I will repost my addition and provide a source. A factual scientific source. Do you have any valid argument against this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetodid (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. The addition as-is is original research and pointless. You've been warned and blocked by other editors for similar edits. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lets do this together, to make sure it gets done right.
Here are my sources;http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070718140829.htm, http://www.salon.com/april97/tiger970430.html
Here is my addition; Controversy, The lineage of every human can be traced back to Africa <ref1>. Currently African Americans are either included or excluded due to the color of their skin. This group also uses known racist policies like the one-drop rule to fill their ranks. Examples of individuals being used (sometimes against their will <ref2>) are Tony Dungy, Barack Obama and Tiger Woods. Have I met the expectations of Wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetodid (talk • contribs) 19:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wetodid, your claim re actually all humans have African roots is original research in the context of the AA article. You then claim that AAs as a group (of 12 odd million individuals defined by their race) use racist policies. That is both deeply insulting and also original research. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You came out of left field with that. People with black skin (ie the 12 odd million Americans you refer to) are still black. I have not said a single negative word against being black. I am only giving context to the term AA. Which is just as bad as German American, Italian American, English American etc.. You dont seem to understand what the term original research means. The opening statement in the AA article says "who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa." My supposed original research addresses only the defining statement of this AA group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetodid (talk • contribs) 19:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you have accused all black Americans of being racist in your previous post here at this page. I understand original research within the context of the wikipedia policy WP:OR perfectly well. Your claim that white people have origins in the current populations of Africa is clearly not true. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest squeakbox I am a bit confused at your ignorance. All humans are racist. It is an instinct. It is a biological survival tactic, which is very successful. My posts have clearly addressed the racist tendancies of the group titled African Americans. Additionally I clearly separated "black people" from the sub group of "African Americans".
Your statement shows you did not even check my reference. You are incorrect and acting intentionally disruptive. Please stop.
Unless my facts are to be disputed or my post to be considered not neutral we are done here. I am asking for your assistance to get this done right. I am not trolling. I am not picking a fight. Please provide assistance or point me to someone willing to do their job. Thank you. Wetodid
- Confused at my ignorance? Racism a biological survival tactic? Please stop disagreeing with your racism? Sigh. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have received no evidence that my facts and references are incorrect.
I have received no evidence that my article is not neutral.
I will again try to include my additions.
Wetodid
==DELETED?==
I would like to include how bamboo can be used in constructing bike frames as well as an updated picture of a bicycle frame built out of bamboo under the three sections of relevance (bamboo, bicycle, bicycle frame). Why was my submission deleted ? I apologize for improper submission... How do I put it on the section so it will be included in the entries will not be deleted ? Bamboo is really an amazing plant and I really want people to know it . Thanks for your help with this and Take Care :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teslatesla (talk • contribs) 04:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have a picture of a bamboo bike. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Why have you deleted the external link to BadBedBugs.com?
I have a ton of valuable information including 100's of comments from people around the world that not only share their stories but support those dealing with the same problem.
Regards,
Jim - BadBedBugs.com
BadBedBugs (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:COI and WP:EL. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific? Can you provide examples so that I understand exactly why it is you feel this is not a valuable contribution to the free encyclopedia?
Thanks,
96.230.189.125 (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The links I provided cover it. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your own website, period. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "Mortgage" page.
The word mortgage has a Latin background pointing to its true biblical origins even before AD. While I disagree of the assessment of the source of the link why remove the content as well?
Also the whole mortgage page is very rough conceptually with its subheadings but I am now too afraid to touch it... just in case my motives are misinterpreted. I think I will give wikipedia project a pass as it doesn't seem to honor facts. I would appreciate some advice for a new discouraged user. Its late here goodnight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3dProwler (talk • contribs) 17:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My advice is to not use Wikipedia to promote your own website. Please feel free to contribute content if you can find a reliable source for it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The version was the one worked for long. Adronorsic is blanking the article. His changes should be considered as major changes and should be discussed. This version is discussed thoroughly in archives he archived for purpose. Please see the archives and my comments here [2]. Mastercasper (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. You are getting close to 3RR, and will be blocked if you violate it. A check user request may also be in order. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do not check the archives then? Mastercasper (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your next reversion will result in a block. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, Ebeing (talk · contribs) is the main account and Wikibeing (talk · contribs) the permanently blocked sockpuppet. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I noticed that after the first decline. I revised my decline reason. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced your decline to User:Rockyobody with one that is both informative and civil. There was no reason for that. The guy is obviously having some kind of issue and there's no reason why we can't actually help him figure it out in a way that is not condescending. Trusilver 23:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created a new page for split loan which did not exist in wikipedia and for a bit of pride and honor I referenced my page. There is no google Page Rank benefit and all I wanted is some recognition. This editor robbed me of my honor and removed the source link of the definition written in wikipedia. This is dishonest and legalistic as this editor does not look at the content and quality of contribution but is arrogant in his position of having done more edits on here. My definition is still there but I am not given any honor? Is this fair? Wikipedia will not last the test of time with such editors as quality contributions are not encouraged. I am strongly discouraged by wikipedia after this experience and would like to know how do I get a say and complain against this editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3dProwler (talk • contribs) 12:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does not have an "honor" system that you describe. As you've already been told, Wikipedia is not the place to promote your website. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm (another time) here for the website about Park Güell. After our talk about the website, I added more information. And I didn't say anything to you because the problems were the ads of Google.
But this weekend I thought that I won't never get rich by this website, so I thought, what’s better, to earn nothing (money), or to share the website that I made for the "Treball de recerca" (a work of two years for the school). So I decided to erase the Google ads.
So if you want, you can visit the website, and if you thing that it's useful for the Wikipedia, ask to someone that has participated to make the Park Güell article, if he thing that is useful.
Then if you thing that it's not good enough to be in Wikipedia say it to me, I won't ask you anymore (exempt you say, please if you add more information about...). If you don't understand anything think that this is not my language.
(website: http://parkguell. net84.net/ )
Thanks--RobCatalà (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still not interested in adding it. It's self-published, and thus does not meet WP:Reliable sources guidlines, not to mention the conflict of interest that has already been mentioned. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whow, really fast, ok so I can see that yo havent look the website, but... (worse to wikipeida, to have these type of administrators) Bye--RobCatalà (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bye. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
stop erasing my links on the c-walk article. They have been there for over two years (close to three years now). They follow all wiki link guidelines. Please contact me explaining why you think they should be removed. DanceOrigin is a well respected and established dance studio in both the UK and US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.152.109 (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Links don't get tenure. Add them again and you'll be blocked, and the links will be blacklisted. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you deleted the source link please delete PAYG Lo-Doc page all together.
Since no honor is given for my work please delete the page with the definition all together which have been taken from my page. You can not have it both ways.
I finally decided to withdraw from the use of wikipedia after this bully experience and do not wish to create more work for your wikipedia. When work content is not honored there is no future with bullies that name themselves after their pet hate not considering the content by dishonoring the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3dProwler (talk • contribs) 01:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia has hundreds (if not thousands) of editors who contribute without any expectations of reward. Good luck in your endeavors. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary for your deletion says "G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page" but the page still exists. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohnoitsjamie. Sorry, but I didn't spot your edit to those new pictures at Cydonia Mensae, so it looks like I've just ridden roughshod over you. Sorry about that. Anyway, thanks for correctly re-captioning them - pyramids my arse! ;-) Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 16:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries; you did make a valid point that the images are lacking a source. Since they will probably be deleted anyway, I went ahead and removed them. If a source is provided, we could revisit whether or not they add anything to the article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the final "pyramid" one was just about worth retaining since it beautifully illustrates just how far it is from being a pyramid (not the intention of the editor who added it, I'm sure), but you're right - they'll probably wind up being deleted (one's actually a duplicate of an existing image amongst other things). Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 16:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary for your revertion says nothing, what is the reason for deletion? Personal feelings or some reasonable wikipedia rule?
" 20:20, 27 November 2008 Ohnoitsjamie (Talk | contribs) m (24,039 bytes) (Reverted edits by Lyckey (talk) to last version by Ohnoitsjamie) (undo) " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyckey (talk • contribs)
You complained about my being inaccurate re refs. To be exact, I removed a sentence or two which was criticised as being original research. I then added in some refs/sentences as well. See Raw Foodism Wikipedia page recent discussions for clarification of what some contributors have viewed as being original research. The text I removed was my own, by the way, which should be fine, though I should have made that clear.Loki0115 (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ohnoitsjamie: (Again, hoping I'm doing this right...) Just wanted to thank you for unblocking me, I really do appreciate it. I'm still reading and mostly lost, however, and I was wondering if there are consultants that I could offer to pay for an hour of their time on the phone related to the whole Wikipedia movement. I really like and respect what you and everyone else involved is doing; it's really quite amazing. I come from academia, and probably have a lot to contribute, but I'm not sure and would certainly benefit from being able to speak with someone the old fashioned way. Any thoughts? Mandelman (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me yet again. I just found the link about adoption and have put the proper text at the top of my page... I think. Sorry to bug you unnecessarily. Mandelman (talk) 07:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
But, why is my text in thest messages coming out bold on your talk page? Mandelman (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia work is all volunteer; you shouldn't have to pay anyone for anything. Do you have any specific or general questions? Your text is coming out bold because you're putting 3 single quote marks before it, which is what wiki-markup uses for bolding (surrounding text with two single quotes will make the text italics.) OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ohnoitsjamie, if you want to revert, please give reasons beyond 'does not belong in article'. Are you basing your reversion on any established set of ideas about travel? Do you have any familiarity with the literature in this field? 86.139.108.172 (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm merely supporting the stance of numerous other editors who disagree with the passages inclusion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So neither you nor they are familiar with the literature on the subject, then? 86.139.108.172 (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a question about your editing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#George_Carlin. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie. I've done some edits over the years, but this is my first time writing so much content. I'm not trying to promote anything here. Please tell me what you would do to this to make it compliant.
Please also explain how a reference to a product as with the iPhone, with it's large photo, on this very same article is allowed and not promotion.
Also explain why using a published book on the exactly the subject of this article, gadgets, is not allowed.
Further, thousands of Wikipedia articles cite commercial products and books now. How is this different?
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafgreen (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When you're spamming info about your own book to multiple articles, I'd say that's a conflict of interest. Please don't do it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your efforts to keep Wikipedia spam free, but...What?!? You are wrong. I am not Steve Greenberg, I did not write Gadget Nation, and I do not work for the book nor the publisher nor anything related. "Multiple articles"? That's inaccurate too. I see one other article containing Gadget Nation. See [3]. Please retract your false, baseless accusations. Also answer the four other questions you ignored, since they are relevant. You see, I am also trying to learn to prevent additional editor time, and am asking once again for a little help in that regard.
- I don't have any proof you're the author; it was a guess based on your username. I'll take your word for it that you're not the author. In any case, the Gadget article is a frequent spam target, and Wikipedia is not the place to promote a book. Your addition sounded like an advertisement for the book, and I note that the editor (Stevetv (talk · contribs · logs) who added the link to Flash of Genius (film) appears to be a single purpose account. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I get it: the "green" in "Leafgreen" proves that I am the same as Steve Greenberg. That assumption is a blantantly irresponsible leap to a false conclusion! You broke the assume good faith rule. You shot first and then waited for the wounded man to ask questions. According to your method of reason, you are a murderer since you share the same name as Jessie James.
- Further, Your lack of use of any evidence other than some fallacious assumption has no place here. Such is no different than the thing you are given to police. Further, you should have also looked up my contribution history and seen that I have only made minor edits, but no subtantial content, and you bit me.
- For the third time, I'm asking you to address the "central points" [4] of our disagreement. Why do you continually avoid them? (Refer to my four questions.) Here's the fifth question: The content I wrote cites an external, respected source of information about gadgets. In direct rebuttal to your statement, "Your addition sounded like an advertisement for the book," how is it any more than citation of an external source? How is it different than citing a book written by Donald Trump's Art of a Deal in a real estate article? Nothing, and my contribution was compliant with reliable sources. Please reinstate the content I wrote. Otherwise, I shall begin dispute resolution. And, you don't have a very strong case.
- Normally I wouldn't have spent the three hours of my Sunday on this, but justice must be served.
- I apologize for erroneously assuming you were the author. However, I'm not going to spend much time defending the deletion of promotional material. If simply added the book with ISBN to a "Selected Reading" section, I probably wouldn't have thought anything of it. The content you added sounds like an advert for the book, with 3 links to the author's site (one in the reference, and two in the External links section, including one to his "gadget store"). Trump has significantly more notability than Greenberg, so it's pointless making a comparison (though if someone posted a passage sourced by Trump and included a link to a Trump "storefront," I'd object to that as well). Regarding the content itself, I don't think everyone would agree that America is unique in it's thirst for gadgets (i.e. Japan). A more appropriate approach would be something to the effect of "Author Steven Greenberg argues that gadgets are primarily an American phenomenon..." and then use the standard {{cite book}} tag. Phrases like "Archetypal garage inventors from across America enjoy the struggle to come up with the next must-have gadget, and in doing so reach for the American dream" do not have the appropriate tone for an encyclopedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I saw that you'd removed a source link for the birthdate of Drew Barrymore here. I'm not sure how that webpage qualifies as spam. It's a brief biography of Barrymore and doesn't appear to be selling anything. In the past, Who's Who in America? was a well-known entity. Could you fill me in on why the page is spam? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's spam when a single user canvasses the link on many pages. Birth dates for most of those subjects are easily verified at other well-established WP:Reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that answers my question. I apparently don't have the other articles on my watchlist and didn't check into the user history. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohnoitsjamie,
You recently edited the Humboldt State University article section on notable people, removing individuals who did not have associated articles. May I ask what the criteria you used in determining their notability were?
Thanks.
-Clueless (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Without an article, the subjects were lacking an appropriate reliable source attesting to their notability. See WP:BIO for more info on what constitutes notability in Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the response. Did you look at the articles? Many of them have no references beyond personal webpages; some have no references at all. Other Wikipedia articles do not qualify as reliable sources, as far as I know, so either all the unreferenced individuals should be removed (which would be a shame) or they should all be given time for referencing (preferable, IMHO, as long as someone is willing/able to find references).
- I'd like to revert your edit in fairness to the people without articles. Simultaneously, I'll add a note to the article's talk page requesting references for the individuals in question -- both the ones with articles and the ones without. How does that sound to you?
- -Clueless (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest that you not do a complete revert. Some of those individuals may meet notability guidelines, though I doubt most of them do (especially the deleted entries from the faculty section; see WP:PROF for more info on academic notability). If you can find third-party reliable sources indicating notability, then feel free to re-add such subjects. An easy way to find reliable sources is via a Google news search (or similar search with your favorite search engine). OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Warning:
It seems you wiki admin are using contents from HosurOnline.Com. If you think the contents that you have pasted is of your own discovery or invention, then provide proper reference and use it. Don't steal and declare as if the contents are of your own.
I am not interested in editing anything, but not interested to allow wiki to have my website contents without proper credits. If you use then mention you have stolen the contents from HosurOnline.Com with guts.
A Soosai Prakash (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The content I restored is not unique to your website. If you continue to make disruptive edits, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then where did you researched the content and pasted it? Feel ashamed for giving such excuse. You are free to block my account but you are not authorized to steal my contents. A Soosai Prakash (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed dubious info from Hosur for which there was no source. Do not remove government links again. OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ha... atleast you surrendered... For full Hosur history feel free to check it at hosur.HosurOnline.Com/aboutHosur.asp. Again, I beg you, don't use my contents.
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg){kind=link}