please refrain from falsely calming my edits as disruptive by trying to inaccurately use wiki policy to stop me from editing, and getting into an edit war. Furthermore, you did not provide any evidence of your accusation. [[User:Street Scholar|Street Scholar]] ([[User talk:Street Scholar|talk]]) 20:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
please refrain from falsely calming my edits as disruptive by trying to inaccurately use wiki policy to stop me from editing, and getting into an edit war. Furthermore, you did not provide any evidence of your accusation. [[User:Street Scholar|Street Scholar]] ([[User talk:Street Scholar|talk]]) 20:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
: You will be blocked if you continue to add unsourced, controversial material to a page. Maybe you didn't intend for it to sound silly, but referring to a mythological horse that travels to the "heavens" as a "space shuttle" is absurd. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<font color="#D47C14">itsJamie</font>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 20:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
: You will be blocked if you continue to add unsourced, controversial material to a page. Maybe you didn't intend for it to sound silly, but referring to a mythological horse that travels to the "heavens" as a "space shuttle" is absurd. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<font color="#D47C14">itsJamie</font>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 20:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
== I'm not spamming ==
I'm trying to edit the planking page because the radio show I produce made planking history by planking while on live radio. I have linked the pictures which prove this. Why do you keep deleting this?
Revision as of 19:59, 29 June 2011
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 do not respond to emails regarding link deletions and other issues that should be discussed on your userpage or the article talk page.
Why did you remove my external links?
If you've come here because you want to know why I removed some external links you've added, please read Wikipedia's policies on spam, Wikipedia external link guidelines and conflict-of-interest first. Because of Wikipedia's popularity, it has become a target for folks looking to promote their sites, which is against Wikipedia policies. If you read WP:SPAM and still feel that your link(s) does not violate those policies, let me know.
One common argument I hear is But so-and-so link is on that article, and it's commercial!WP:EL doesn't explicitly forbid In links to commercial sites; it depends on the notability of the link, its content, and if it's a reference or a notable pro/con argument on a controversial subject, etc. On the other hand, I think that many Wikipedians would agree that there are way too many commercial links at present time, so feel free to "prune away" if the link doesn't meet guidelines in WP:EL. Incidentally, if you've come here to complain that I've deleted links to your blog (especially a blog with advertising), don't bother. You'll have to find free advertising somewhere else. A good Google search will reveal plenty of places for that sort of thing.
Vandalism and insults left here will be recycled in the bit bucket. Remember: be nice!
I do not think you are an expert in the subject matter of the article, but I think you could provide guidance as to who has the burden of proof when editors wish to insert unsupported claims that an company (or other entity) has NOT done something. Thanks very much. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please contact me regarding the blocks that have been put on this shared account as I would like to clarify any misunderstandings. Thanks! (MonicaFORA) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonicaFORA (talk • contribs) 17:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure which "shared account" you are talking about, but I'm guessing you're talking about an account that was blocked for repeat spamming. (Also, "shared accounts" are not permitted anyway). Nothing else to say; we don't allow link canvassing here, and block accounts that continue to do it after receiving sufficient warnings. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting quite tired of that discussion; I want it to end either way. I don't want to edit war or something. Could you try and bring it to a conclusion? Thanks. Yes Michael? •Talk13:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not Spamming
Hi Jamie, when a user adds information to an article that isn't already listed in the article (I think it's called contributing) and they cite that information, why on earth would that be spamming? We worked long and hard gathering data from the CDC, EPA, NPMA, and other authoritative sources to create (in my opinion) the most up-to-date, creative infographic surrounding the topic of bed bugs that the web has seen. It's cited material, and presents facts that are not on the official "Bed Bug" wiki page. Trust me, I know what spamming is. Did you even look at the site I linked to? It's frustrating when I'm actually providing unique content to the wiki page, and you're calling it spam. Do you disagree that the current top-ten infested cities in the United States should be listed there? I think everyone would appreciate that information.Noahlocke (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I work long and hard to keep people from using Wikipedia as an advertising medium. You're welcome to add information using government/educational institution sources. If you add a link to your business again, your account will be blocked. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So if a company creates unique content through proper research you don't allow it? That is not consistent with what I see on most Wiki pages, rather just the ones you edit. It seems that you work long and hard to keep great content from Wikipedia. There is nothing promotional about The Pest Nest, or the infographic that we made. Censorship is not part of Wikipedia, and we are not advertising.Noahlocke (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, James, because Wikipedia uses the "no-follow" tag, external links from Wikipedia don't offer any help in search engine rankings. But you knew that already. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahlocke (talk • contribs) 22:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do. I also know that unlike your site, Wikipedia is in the top 10 (usually number one) search results for "bed bug". Bye. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jamie, this argument is not about spammy links, its about one persons mission to have purity and non-commerciality, at the expense of genuine quality content. Its not a question of investigating other 'SEO techniques' - if an article is describing a topic that is remotely commercial, then it makes total sense that the EL may include (god forbid) some websites that actually are a profit generating business. Just because wikipedia is purely no ads and not for profit, making all EL bereft of any commercial organisation is not just short sighted and damaging for WP long term, it is simply wrong. You do not own the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.32.150 (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, lets be serious - what is it about the site that is spammy!? People who visit the site via wiki stick around, read, add comments... therefore indicating that it is VALUABLE. A simple 'you will be blocked' isn't acceptable, we need to know why you choose to remove the site link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.32.150 (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie. I am new to wiki updates and I admit that I am motivated by including a provider list as I represent one of the companies on the list, but if the external link is provided simply to link back to their respective company wiki page, is that a violation? You removed my edit for Colocation business provider list yesterday so I'm assuming it is; just want to get clarity. Thanks so much.
I'm responding to your note. Being new to Wikipedia I did read several dozen or close to a hundred other articles before attempting to edit or contribute myself. I find many with links similar to those I attempted such as:
Line with external link to Behind the Name by Zilariah15
Really, I thought my contributions were better than theirs because I added useful content such as meanings of names for those that didn't have them plus a reference. It is my site, but I feel that it's a valid reference for the information I provided.
Reading your talk page, I see you deleted links to another user's blog that turned out to be pretty cool so you later reversed the action.
Will you check out my site to see if my adds and references were ok? I hope they were.
We don't allow contributors to canvas links to a single site, especially when there is a likely WP:COI issue. If any of the above users mentioned were systematically canvassing links, the links should be removed as well. However, if they were one-off good faith efforts to provide a source, that's a different issue (unless the site clearly doesn't meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines. OhNoitsJamieTalk13:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This user normally gives up quickly and only comes back after many weeks. If he tries again and you want to protect the article, I think 2 days of semiprotection would be plenty. HansAdler15:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you two seem to be going at each other in the history yet without much commentary, would it be possible for you to come to the talk page and express what's happening and the kind of disputes, that it might be mediated? I plan to take a look at the changes but at a glance I'm not entirely sure what's going on. DB (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to discuss obvious spam on the article's discussion page. I blocked the user, who then deleted the warnings and block notice on their talk page. I had no interest in the "pullup/chinup" dispute. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah when I took a closer look (hadn't actually reviewed them all) it was clear you were removing ads. There's probably dozens if not hundreds of similar pages about it. That's also why I separated this one you removed, I usually don't delete things for fear of offending people but I don't mind fact-tagging them or making them more apparent for others who might do so. This pull vs. chin dispute is intense though, I like this whole ACE vs. Marines thing. DB (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request
Hey, sorry to bother you again; but could you remove my enforced wikibreak (for my main account) here? I try to take a break, but I usually fail :( . Thanks. Yes Michael? •Talk19:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was a little kneejerk (assumed it was another sock). That said, I don't think it needs to be qualified like that "a gay kiss." Per caption guidelines (for the visually impaired), would have made more sense to caption it as "two men engage in a passionate kiss" or something along those lines. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, definitely not hating on you for the revert, it's an easy mistake, given the user is red, and recent vand on the page. I'll change the caption to your suggestion, I like it. CTJF8316:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Drum Kit Video Deletion
I added this video on the Drum Kit article because it encompasses what the article is about. I specifically dedicated my time and work into this video to showcase drumming which is why I object your deletion of the video. Not only that, this video is for a class project where we are learning the basics of Wikipedia.
Drummergirl3 (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the instructor for the course Drummergirl3 is participating in. We're part of Wikiproject Lights Camera Wiki, which is specifically collecting videos related to music and other topics for which moving images and would would be helpful to illustrate comments. Since Drummergirl3 is brand new to Wikipedia and operating in student mode, and since Wikipedia is struggling to attract female editors, I also want to remind you about WP:BITE. Jgmikulay (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing WP:BITEy to her. I've been editing since 2006, so you don't need to lecture me on Wikipedia policies. The video doesn't add anything to the article. Wikipedia is not a place to post video's of oneself learning to play the drums. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie. Free content educational videos are of value to the encyclopedia, as yet another outlet through which to convey encyclopedic information (alongside the more established text, photos, diagrams, and sound recordings). Video, like any other medium, comes in many shapes and it is important that we do not overlook the encyclopedic uses of new technology, and also work to develop the nuances of best encyclopedic practice with this new medium. I'd like to invite you to look at the Wikipedia Video and Education Working Group for more on this. Thanks!--Pharos (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against the use of a video in an article per se. I'm saying this particular video doesn't add anything to the page. Watch the video for yourself. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not saying it's the world's greatest drum kit video, but I do think we should allow a little leeway and room for evolving standards whenever we start to use a whole new medium for encyclopedic information. Certainly our first generations of articles and images were to lesser standards than what there is today, but I still think these had an important historical role to play in actually developing those standards.--Pharos (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly confident that an WP:RFC would establish an easy consensus that the video in question is not appropriate for the article. I'm trying to be nice and avoiding getting specific, but I will if you insist. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heather Lewis Deletion
I'm wondering why you deleted the Heather Lewis (drummer & singer for Beat Happening) page. Without seeing what was written there, it's impossible for me to know whether the deletion was appropriate, but Beat Happening was a very influential group and Heather's vocals are a key component of the band's sound. In addition, she has done guest vocals for other groups, so it seems appropriate that she would have her own entry for other articles to link to. I came to Wikipedia specifically to look up information on her work only to find that her entry had been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.163.193 (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that was two years ago. In any case, I'm familiar with Beat Happening. Probably shouldn't have been speedied, but unlike Calvin Johnson, it doesn't appear that Lewis is notable for anything else as far as I know. Notice the last line in this section of Music notability guidelines:
Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article. I've created the redirect. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the redirect, though I would still respectfully submit that she deserves her own page. She was in the Supreme Cool Beings, who are notable for having the first ever release on K Records (see here for details). And she has contributed vocals to several Land of the Loops songs, including their big single "Multi-family Garage Sale." I'm sure she's probably been involved in other stuff I don't know about, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.163.193 (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I have a Land of the Loops CD with that song on it. Sounds like she's done enough outside of Beat Happening to warrant a page. Feel free to overwrite the redirect and expand the article. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello: I have just discovered that you have been, and still are, active editing the Angola article. As I have now also started to do so, may I ask whether this is a field in which you are specializing? Aflis (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
58 done. None remain. If you know any other such book seller urls, just tell me. I know the drill, and will be happy to zap them. Thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jubulation911
Thanks for asking anyway. I wonder how much tacit knowledge you have of vandals and their distinctive characteristics. Later, Drmies (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few. I didn't make the connection with this one until his last comment, and after noticing the similarities of his username to a recently blocked username. I first ran into the "disassembling" bandit at Japanese Tsunami related articles. Apparently he's expanded his horizons of disassembly. OhNoitsJamieTalk23:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. joe deckertalk to me04:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. Just received your message. My apologies as I wasn't trying to add any extra links. I was trying to cite my source. It has been ages since I have edited a page on Wikipedia, so this is a bit new to me. My intent was to add a sub-section regarding medical malpractice insurance from a recent document I read. Where did I go wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medicalmaster123 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jamie, I did not intend to add commercial link. I just found it very resourceful when it popped up in Google news regarding some of the broad topics within medical malpractice and thought it could help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medicalmaster123 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really mean that French sources are not good enough fo you?? do you only accept american ones???? very strange!!! a French source (a famous magazine, a journal on line, and so on) are reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politicsandletters (talk • contribs) 16:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already said, read WP:BLP. To include controversial material about a living person, you need multiple 3rd-party sources. As it stands now, the only source I find for this is the primary source (i.e., the blog of the individual making the accusation). That's not enough. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you blind??? i gave several sources in the "discussion" page... there are more than 3 reliable sources (Tetu, Minorite.org, and do on : i gave the quotations, and the links...) Your bad faith is amazing and unbearable...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Politicsandletters (talk • contribs)
Whoops Wrong user! And yes Politicsandletters, please watch the personal attacks. Also consider this - is one person accusing someone of plagiarism really notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia? If you're struggling this bad to find sources, probably not. --Yankees76Talk17:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't care, really. Blocked users are usually allowed to access their talk page if they want to appeal for an unblock. Blanking the page doesn't "unblock them," though some seem to think that it will. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how I approach things like this. The manning links aren't inappropriate per se; WP:SPAs canvassing them was. I remove everything that's been canvassed (i.e., following the spammer's contributions) but will usually leave links alone that may have been added in good faith by uninvolved editors. I'll take a closer look at the Windows PowerShell history to try to figure out who added the link and/or if it's necessary. OhNoitsJamieTalk12:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say that was very decent of you to come back and undo the delete you did a few days ago when you saw the article from the Consumerist. I was wondering if you do that when the event became a little more widely known :) Thanks.Whodoesdo (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pull-ups
I don't understand what is wrong with the links in Pull-up_(exercise)? All you tell me is "no and no"? I looked through the guidelines and it says that sites "that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". The article didn't contain the information I linked. what is wrong with that?
Uh, I'm not understanding what you said to me, what was the problem with the 1996 arrest on Charlie Sheen's page? I found and/or searched to find these sources, so just write me back to make things clear. Thanks.RoadHouse (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
please could you unblock the user purpler0ckofficialas i really want the account back, i have understood what i did wrong and it was right to block me but please could yo unblock it. i have read all the pages
Thanks
The rightfull owner of purpler0ckofficial— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.40.101 (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|I have learned my lesson and i was angry and will never do it again}}[reply]
I removed the sentence calling Nairs as dogs because it is taken from a well known anti-Nair source. There is not a single other source supporting that view. Why the hell you are acting in such a biased manner? Robbie.Smit (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You received a final warning for making a personal attack in an edit summary. Anything remotely resembling an attack in the future will result in your account being blocked. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed contribution
Just curious as to why you removed my addition to the 'sexual positions' article? I know it was unsourced, but i have been looking for acceptable sources to add. also why did you say "thanks for experimenting with wikipedia"? although i rarely edit, i have been with wikipedia for 5 years, and was certainly not experimenting. Moss Ryder (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moss Ryder (talk • contribs) 15:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand, why did i get a warning? 15:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Because the addition was unsourced, and not even really a position. The article is not an arbitrary list of every conceivable sex act. I'm not discussing it here further. Find a source or move on. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THIRD is pretty simple to use, and comes in handy for things like this. You're doing the right thing by taking it to the talk page, although I get the impression that KB doesn't wish to discuss it further. As far as my opinion goes, I can't say that I feel strongly either way; I'd lean a little toward saying it doesn't need the tag, but then again, the tag isn't that big of a deal. Maybe the real question is whether or not any useful verifiable information exists regarding Scouting in Taiwan during a relatively small span of years. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But wait, this user is autoconfirmed, or will be eventually. Suggest either unchecking "allow user to edit talk page while blocked" in the blocked settings or fully protecting it.Jasper Deng(talk)22:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
I just wondered why you classified my changes to the online dating site comparison chart as advertising? The copy entered was simply listing features as the other sites do. If it's based on the size of the site then there are other sites currently on the chart of a similar or smaller size. If you could give me feedback I could resubmit with the necessary modifications.
All the best,
Jimmy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmysparkle (talk • contribs) 16:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The content you have restored is based on discussion forums and OR. Every attempt to request better sources from Platinumshore has been ignored. Every time tags were added to the section Platinum removed them with no comment other than personal attacks. I request that you look closely at the content and respect BRD. Platinum was bold, I (after six months of requesting discussion on the subject) reverted. Please help keep this a GA article. 24.143.90.21 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Platinum has removed the sources that were discussion forums backing his claim (actually, I never read the forums themselves, just the articles associated with them to see if there was any validity to the statements inserted in the WP page). That said, there is nothing right with the sources in that dif. [3] is copied from wikipedia. Also, there is nothing in the export land model that supports what Platinum has written (higher prices leading to higher local consumption?!). [4] has nothing to do with the statement it is used to reference... it is a graph showing where USA's oil comes from, not anything even suggesting that "positive feedback mechanism of re-localisation of manufacturing production would therefore be positive for OECD oil demand." [5] is a half hour long interview which validates the statement right before it, but not the two statements before that. [6] is another graph that backs up some raw data, but is presented as useless jargon. 24.143.90.21 (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Please take a closer look at this diff that you have reverted. I took a long hard look at this myself and it appears to be a constructive edit. In addition, the sources were not deleted, but just move around. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at it again. Two paragraphs were removed. (Note in the page history a difference of over 1,000 characters between the two edits). OhNoitsJamieTalk21:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, after looking at it again, I agree to your reversion. The edit in question was a somewhat subtle effort to water down the well sourced criticism of the use of hCG in weight loss. Sorry about that. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the articles we both watch
There have been repeated WP:COI-violating edits to many music articles by User:Jcooper1, listing his own compositions and recordings in articles. I'm staying out of it from here on, but you might want to see the discussion and his and my talk pages and see if it's something you want to keep an eye on. Thanks. - Special-T (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the articles we both watch (Kenton page dispute)
I am protesting your edit. Do your homework on this one...
Did either you or Special T (alerted you about me) actully do a google search for Doug Purviance? Purviance has a large amount of credits for the past 40+ years and has performed around the world. He is well known as the long time bass trombonist with the Thad Jones/Mel Lewis Band-Vanguard Jazz Orchestra(s). He is on the Kenton list of sidemen in the article itself (you probably did not even scroll down, did you?). Your edit makes no sense at all, I am not sure you know the genre too well to be honest. Purviance adds a specific point to the article about the relationship Kenton had with African-American players. For your information, Donald Byrd (in article above where I added) served far more a soloist with his own groups or those of players like John Coltrane (look him up) than as a VERY brief sideman with Kenton, in the Kenton clinics (I would have NEVER used Donald Byrd in this article, it leaves a person in the know scratching thier head to be honest). The addition of Byrd there does not make the MOST SALIENT point about Black sidemen, what Kenton actually did for those day in/day out players on his touring groups. Purviance was a true touring sideman in the sense of the word and is one of the very few of his generation of Black sidemen (quite notable) that got this sort of start with Kenton or even Woody Herman.
(The Baron Jon Von Ohlen, Chuck Carter, and Richard Torres)
...are more important in the article than a person like Purviance (they are in the section above 'criticism' on the Kenton page...please be very specific). I could substitute any one of those names with a long list to even include Purviance (again, he is included on the page below). Jcooper1 (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, there has been some tension between us and I want to settle this gently and threating to block is not helping your case at all. When you do things like that makes me think that you have a lot of issues and you feel that you always have to be right, but I don't think that you are not that kind of person but saying things like that makes feel that way about you. Charlie Sheen, what is the problem with my sources? I looked hard for those sources and to find that information and to have you just trash my work like a piece of garbage doesn't make me feel good and that hurts. So explain to me what your problem is and we can do to settle it in a calm and gentle manner and please do not make threats like that until you have fully explained yourself. Write back as soon as you can so we can settle our differences. Thank you. RoadHouse (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While your suspicions may or may not be correct (I don't profess to understand abstract art), the reality is I think the article would easily survive an WP:AFD per the extent of the media coverage. I'm not sure it would be a snowball keep, but if I were a gambling man I'd be it was kept. I've seen subjects with less coverage survive afd. Sorry to disappoint, OhNoitsJamieTalk23:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Milner Schools until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JRPG (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry.
I did not realize that I was being disruptive, and I sincerely apologize for any damage my ignorance may have caused to the integrity of Wikipedia. I will do my utmost to avoid such mishaps in the future, and I hope we can all work together to make Wikipedia a much better place. 69.62.229.144 (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Links to Maternal & Child Health Library resources
I am a reference librarian at the Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Library at Georgetown University (funded by the Maternal & Child Health Bureau at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) whose primary work scope is to locate authoritative resources on topics related to children and mothers. I am NOT a spammer; in fact, my attempt to add "External Links" to Wikipedia pages that address the topics we focus on -- Bullying and Cultural Competence, for example -- is simply an attempt to provide neutral, unbiased, and up-to-date information. Our resources are updated regularly (those I recently attempted to provide links to were updated within the past year); the links are very stable (the MCH Library has existed for more than 25 years and houses HRSA's Maternal & Child Health Bureau's collections); and the MCH Library Website meets ALL of the accessibility requirements outlined in Section 508 of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We are NOT a for-profit (dot com) entity; rather, we are a government-funded nonprofit organization housed within a highly-respected academic institution. We are not "advertising" or "promoting" ourselves; we are simply trying to enhance the quality of the information provided on Wikipedia. I must admit I was offended by the accusatory language in Wikipedia's administrative response asking that I "stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia" and threatening that I will be blocked from editing Wikipedia if I continue "spamming." I believe the language of this Auto response should be revised to show more respect to volunteer contributors such as myself who are simply trying to enhance the quality of Wikipedia.
Committed to a step by step improval of the Angola related articles, I consider Faye Farstad's introducing additional references as clearly helpful. They are perfectly relevant, and I can't image how on earth anybody should think they are spam or vandalism. This is why I just reverted a revert of yours, and would like to ask you to respect what are (for anybody familiar with the subject matter) pertinent and welcome contributions. Aflis (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can only repeat: for my (and other users') work on the Angola related texts, where one of the shortcoming is that adequate references are often lacking, contributions like those by Fay Farstad are useful and welcome. They are not "canvas", but call the intention to sources of uncontested quality which had not been used because they were unknown. Your application of the rule you invoke is thus inappropriate, and harmful for efforts to improve the articles in question. Aflis (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shameful promotion? What on earth are you talking about? A published song with a registered IMEI number from an album with an official unique UPC code is worth of publication on Wikipedia. The point of Wikipedia is NOT for advertising, but for informational purposes. And last warning? I've never had a first warning! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgwti (talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there- you deleted the page based on promotion. There were a fair amount of articles at the bottom of the page that would define the company as reasonably important, and all subjective language was removed. I'd like to create the page and I obviously want to follow Wikipedia's rules. What would you suggest I do to make the page more verifiable? Would specific links to facts supporting each statement help? Thanks!
Absalom23 (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On June 20 you left a note on my user page that you deleted "spam" I added to a page. Note that I've been updating Wikipedia with legit and true information, verified facts and celebrity-requested updates to their pages for years now. Whether on the PR side, updating biographical facts; or on the journalist side as a writer, updating reference notes per the artist's own words about their life, everything I add is a reference that actually adds to the history or facts for that celebrity. It is in no way spamming, and while I understand you're excited about being on top of your job, you could have at least been specific about what, where and why you deleted a link rather than just labeling me a spammer. It looks like you have several similar complaints on this talk page, so perhaps a little better communication on your part will help alleviate the misunderstandings you're having. Thank you. Dovelyone (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read the blurb at the talk of the page. Most of the other complainers here have not. If you continue to ref spam urblife.com, you will be blocked. I haven't gone back and removed all of your urblife refs, but if you continue to pester me about this, I'll be happy to post on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam, where the link additions will receive a greater degree of scrutiny. OhNoitsJamieTalk23:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie, I apologize if you've taken what I've said personally. I am in no way trying to "pester" you. I am a reputable journalist and publicist, and only post information that is factual. If in any way I posted something that was not said specifically by the artist, actor or personality, or given in a news-based press release, please do point it out. Any time I've made a reference note, it's regarding current projects that have been specifically mentioned by my subject, absolutely no different than anyone from MTV News or other reputable news/journalistic outlets have done for Wikipedia pages. I did read the links you provided, with specific attention to these:
I feel that I have consistently complied with these guidelines. It's clear in my history that I'm not doing anything malicious or anything for simple promotion, it would be a waste of my time to do so. In response to your accusation of spamming, I simply asked if you could specifically tell me which item you removed and why, that would help us to better communicate. I welcome you and/or your supervisors to scrutinize any posts I've made with reference to facts, assuming it would be done in a fair and professional manner, and welcome your feedback.
I will be happy to give you my email for direct contact if you would like to discuss further. I really look to Wikipedia as a journalist as a source of good information, and feel that I understand what other journalists and even fans like to see when they are referencing biographical information on a celebrity. I thank you in advance for your time and fair response.
Your pattern of edits which mostly involves adding urblife links falls under WP:SPA, WP:REFSPAM, and most likely WP:COI, regardless of the quality of links. We've blocked editors who've added nothing but links to Smithsonian or Discovery links as well. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Socks of each other. An SPI was opened here, but I guess they take a lot of time to act upon it. I guess the nature of their comments are quite similar, as are their contribs. Another editor also expressed similar concerns, so I came to you :P But then, the accounts were created in 2007 and 2009, so I guess that rules out any Ducking. Lynch716:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
please refrain from falsely calming my edits as disruptive by trying to inaccurately use wiki policy to stop me from editing, and getting into an edit war. Furthermore, you did not provide any evidence of your accusation. Street Scholar (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You will be blocked if you continue to add unsourced, controversial material to a page. Maybe you didn't intend for it to sound silly, but referring to a mythological horse that travels to the "heavens" as a "space shuttle" is absurd. OhNoitsJamieTalk20:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not spamming
I'm trying to edit the planking page because the radio show I produce made planking history by planking while on live radio. I have linked the pictures which prove this. Why do you keep deleting this?
![[4]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dr3S8zqPnj4/TUvzpdrnqWI/AAAAAAAAUJQ/IpvKl0WYzTE/s1600/transparency.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://www.theoildrum.com/files/Screen%20shot%202011-04-26%20at%208.31.07%20AM.png){kind=link}