Hehe - loved [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmiri_Pandit&curid=399065&diff=524879724&oldid=524864861 this summary]. You beat me to the revert and snuck a witticism in there also ;) [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 02:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Hehe - loved [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmiri_Pandit&curid=399065&diff=524879724&oldid=524864861 this summary]. You beat me to the revert and snuck a witticism in there also ;) [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 02:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
: Ha, can't help myself sometimes. Glad to hear you got a kick out of it. :) <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<font color="#D47C14">itsJamie</font>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 03:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
: Ha, can't help myself sometimes. Glad to hear you got a kick out of it. :) <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<font color="#D47C14">itsJamie</font>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 03:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks wiki for guide me about minor changes in any page and for practice we need to use "Sandbox". Will you please guide me about how i can edit any good pages ?
Revision as of 06:16, 29 November 2012
Talk page
NEW MESSAGES GO TO THE BOTTOM. NOT THE TOP.
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!
PLEASE LEAVE NEW COMMENTS AT THE *BOTTOM* OF THIS PAGE.
Variety References
re: your comments on my recent entries - I have no connection or affiliation with the blog whatsoever. I don't know the person who runs it, I have no commercial agenda. (The blog is not even used to advertise anything.) I use it because it collates data from Variety, the film industry trade paper, a highly regarded source. This blog reproduces information from there (and other sources) to provide an invaluable information database that is incredibly useful for wikipedia readers. I could just put the reference to Variety and not have the blog link but it would mean users miss out on seeing where the information came from and being able to put it in context e.g. I give box office rentals for the films - logging on to the blog will mean people will also be able to see where those films ranked in box office rentals for that year. I believe the link is entirely appropriate until another website that contains all this information is created.Dutchy85 (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think it was your blog or anything; I just don't think that a blog that simply replicates data from another site is an appropriate reference. That said, I posted it to the Wikiproject Spam board to solicit further opinions (and on that posting I did specifically say that I thought you were adding the links in good faith). OhNoitsJamieTalk02:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be best to use the original Variety link but its not available on the internet - the transmission of the data is accurate. So many wikipedia film articles are unreferenced - I'm trying to provide pages with some sort of reference for these pages. I've never done an entry which simple lists a link - I always include some other basic film information e.g. it's IMDB listing. I have checked a lot of the information in my own collection of Variety box office listings (photographed from papers at the library) and it is accurate. (If you can point to an error please let me know and I will remove it). I appreciate you're trying to decrease the amount of spam out there but ask that an exception be given in this occasion.Dutchy85 (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I agree with Hu12 (a veteran editor very well-versed in EL policy). You shouldn't have kept adding the links after I notified you that they probably were not acceptable. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dutchy, I agree that a lot of film articles are very under-referenced and appreciate your willingness to try to find an online link to information but you don't really need a link to an online source, you really only need a reference to a published reliable source even if there's no online link available. If you have information directly from Variety with those library photographs, then you include the Author/Volume/Issue/Page from Variety to back up your cited source. If the information is available in a reliably-sourced book like Solomon's 20th Century or Steinberg's Reel Facts that does not have an online version, then it's pretty much the same, just fill out the appropriate Cite template and leave the URL information blank. Shearonink (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please Don't delete my page this time
Dear ohnoitsjamie,
I am recreating the page JT12_O2, please don't delete it this time, this page was being created for good reasons and was going to be there for people to see my good work i was not praising myself or trying to show myself off in a good way so please let me have the page
Wikipedia is not free web-hosting. The page does not meet any of our guidelines for inclusion; if you continue to recreate it, you will be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mohammed
I assume you're holding off on him because you're slightly WP:INVOLVED? Very nice of you but if it were up to me he'd be blocked a long time ago.
Anyhoo, just dropping you a note to let you know I've taken him to ANI.
Jamie It's OBAUM!! and I want to say I am sorry for messing with your page and didn't mean to cause any users of that were using that page for a report harm or misfault.— Preceding unsigned comment added by OBAUM!! (talk • contribs)
"Shankweiler's Auto Park: Orefield, Pennsylvania"....first result on the Google search. Argh, sorry for reverting your edits! No harm, no foul, eh? :D Theopolisme TALK03:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm doing this properly. Would you take a look at the recent edits to the Carlin Romano page? They seem to be made by someone promoting publicity. There are many deletions of sources that refer to controversies that define the importance of the subject and inclusion of only positive p.r. And they are done by someone with a single purpose and only on this page. Thank you.
Philebritite (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
(2) Thank you for your contribution; indeed you did come up with a compromise. I followed your lead and integrated all relevant material externally sourced as in-line citations. Cinacina123, however, is now using another sockpuppet (Ecoscrimps) to revert all substantive changes and remove all non-p.r. material. Again, it is single-purpose, single-subject, continuous with the previous actions of Cinacina123. This is one strongly determined person behind these edits. I don't know how to produce balanced coverage of the subject and his controversies under these conditions. Could you take another look, please? Philebritite (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you so much for your attention in the entry "Carlin Romano". Could you take another look at that entry. This nametag "Philebritite" keep deleting the information which is verified and with reference. What he defined as puffery is not necessarily defined by else. He holds hatred toward Carlin Romano and keep adding what he think is negative information to Mr. Romano. That is Okay if it is supported by solid evidence, and I can understand. What I cannot understand is why he uses double-standard to say that other nametags' editing (with reference) is "wordy puffery".
(cur | prev) 18:11, 13 June 2012 Philebritite(talk | contribs) . . (10,578 bytes) (-1,440) . . (shorten wordy puffery, add in critical references that have been repeatedly deleted by Cinacina123 sockpuppets) updated since my last visit (undo)
Philebritite's long-time destructive activities
Philebritite keep deleting facts with reference in the Carlin Romano entry (cur | prev) 16:55, 21 June 2012 Philebritite(talk | contribs) m (12,120 bytes) (-17) (→Career: correct the details of a reference so it does not go beyond the stated facts) (undo)).
Could you please take a look at history of all his destructive behavior in the Carlin Romano entry since 2009? All that he did only makes the entry unbalanced. It is not fair that you let him keep his crazy editing moves. His intention of putting what he think negative information to make the subject look bad is so obvious, he only add negative information and delete all positive information even with fact.
It is weird that Philebritite put minor controversies such as Philip Roth as the major content of this entry, and you encourage him to do so, which making the subject always rouse controversies, which is not true. You can enter"carlin romano " in the search bar, and you will see a lot of sentences mentioning "Carlin Romano", which cited Mr. Romano's reviewing opinion as the content of an entry. For example, entries of Jeffrey Eugenides,Binnie Kirshenbaum refer to Carlin Romano's opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecoshrimps (talk • contribs) 03:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Philebritite has a better understanding of Wikipedia policy than you do. I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make in this post. OhNoitsJamieTalk04:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just feel sad about your judgement. So obvious that Philebritite is coming again and again to destroy the entry and to defame Mr. Romano. Some of his previous post in 2009, 2010 even violate Mr. Romano's privacy. I believe Wiki policy does not encourage libel as Philebritite did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecoshrimps (talk • contribs) 13:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a WP:BLP policy that is taken very seriously; that said, I have yet to see anything that Philebritite has added that violates that policy. (Unlike yourself (and the numerous other single-purpose accounts editing the article), Philebritite edits a variety of articles). If you want additional opinions regarding BLP, feel free to post on the BLP noticeboard. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you check all of Philebritite's history,you'll see 90% of his editing is in Carlin Romano's entry, especially when he first created his account to post false information in Mr. Romano's entry (Luckily, other editors save this entry with great effort, which you can see in the talk page of Carlin Romano's page). Philebritite just edited other articles to shape the impression that he is a objective editor(now he get what he wanted when you agree that he edits a variety of articles, which lead you to your conclusion that this so-call variety will make his editing in Carlin Romano's entry more neutral--strange logic), but his main purpose is still in Mr. Romano's entry. If you do based your judgement on the number of article the two of us is editing, I have nothing to say. Feel sorry and very sad about your judgement. Maybe I should not and will not seek help from you any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecoshrimps (talk • contribs) 00:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Supreme Dicks page edits by Threegeny
Hi there, I'm asking you nicely to please not revert the Supreme Dicks page to any versions done by Threegeny as their edits to that page are vandalism. I'm also putting a warning on their page. Thanks! Mechaferret (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you may want to take another look at Richmond Fire Department as I have began rescuing it and now it has independent sources including some unambiguous in depth coverage of one of the many environmental catastrophes that occur in Richmond and that this department in particular is notorious for dealing with. I have found more sources and will be adding them, thanks for giving it a second look and if you have any input or could help expand, copyedit, or trim the article in any way please be my guest. Thank you. -Troy.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...coney blog is used to get information for the site, it is not commercial and only informational, I have edited the wikipedia entry mysefl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msmokevi (talk • contribs) 02:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages
Dear Author/Ohnoitsjamie
My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Barrett's Osophagus.
I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please visit my Talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance.
Hydra Rain (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good Tools are Not Spam
We referenced a link to a free speed and quality tester in the section that mentioned Quality of Service (QoS). It seems far from SPAM and a very useful tool to readers. We respectfully request that you put the reference to the speed tester back. People that use VoIP have a real need to check network speed and QOS.Rogerbabbott (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read the blurb at the top of the page. Your contributions thus are are leading you down the path of getting blocked as a spam-only account. OhNoitsJamieTalk13:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you feel my posting is advertising - what I fail to understand though is why the other links are considered acceptable? They are all links to similar providers as Textlocal, and indeed in most cases are competitors?! And indeed, Textlocal would be considered a much more reliable and bigger provider to say Txtnation! Nunners 13:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunners (talk • contribs)
Hi Ohnoisjamie, I don't want to be bothering you about this, but since you reverted the same commercial links I reverted in Henson trust, I was hoping you could help with something. Can you take a look at Registered Disability Savings Plan because to me, the article seems like it's nothing but spam and would like a second opinion before editing as to avoid offending the editor who made all the recent additions. The same editor keeps adding this stuff to several articles, and left me a message earlier today on my talk page trying to argue that the links should be allowed becasue there helpul to people who have children with disabilities. I did my best to try to explain the policy about external links to her, but maybe if a far more experienced edior took a look and edited out the spam, she might understand why her links keeps getting reverted. Like I said above, I don't want to bother you because I know you're busy with other stuff, so if it wasn't appropriate for me to ask this of you, I appologize. Cmr08 (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
23andMe
Hi,
I don't know if I'd consider this source as spam. I struggled a bit with whether it should be included, but it does verify some text that is now without a source. Moment does seem to be a legitimate source, and the information, though slightly self-serving, does seem valid (noting for instance that 23andMe isn't solely doing free Parkinson's screenings out of pure selflessness but rather because of a family connection between one of the co-founders and the disease). Is there something I'm missing? Because right now I'm leaning towards replacing the citation. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex15:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I deleted it based on the editor, an SPA spamming two magazines (I had a similar issue recently with a different SPA spamming the same magazine). Had an editor without an obvious COI added it, I would not have objected. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed and integrated it (and I totally see why you would be concerned over it being spam) and I would say it looks OK. Do you have any issue with me replacing it? Even spam accounts can make good edits on occassion, though often by accident rather than design :) WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have any issues with you integrating it. My intent is to make it clear to SPAs that canvassing isn't permitted. I don't have an issue with the ref per se. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk16:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thank you for service to the world in editing Wikipedia. It takes a village... Your efforts no doubt contribute to the growth of Wikipedia.
I would like to question you on your reversal of my edits. Several of the persons that you removed can all be quickly googled and found to be either notable in academia or business. I did not do an exhaustive search on all of them, but after verifying two of them I could find no reasoning in your edit and reversed them all.
Case in point, on what reasoning and logic could you possibly remove E. Vachel Pennebaker from the list of notable alumni. A graduate in 1970, a former president of Sears & Roebuck as well as a Georgia State University Board member.
While I am not going to go through the entire list, I will challenge any edit you make at this point, on this page.
Please take a moment to look at the salient facts, consider the standards that we all strive to adhere to on Wikipedia when you decide to edit the page again. Make special note that many of the people you have removed meet and exceed the criteria we go by as they are academics.
They have appealed against their block. I am going to change it as it is not a candidate for a hardblock, it is a standard COI/company name one which should have been given softer block. Secretlondon (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2012
Hi Jamie, I received a message that my external links didn't comply with the guidelines and were taken down, so I read the Wikispam policy and am contacting you per your page's instructions. I believe the links were removed in error and would like to know what other information you need to reconsider them. Thanks, Kativw (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Kativw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kativw (talk • contribs) 23:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You just autoblocked my IP address. No hard feelings (you referred to someone else's account, and there are ten thousand people using this IP address), but I was in the middle of an edit to Wikipedia: Activist; I wanted to change "It is definitely better for a conflict to be disclosed, than disguised and pursued on the sly" to "It is definitely better for a conflict to be disclosed than to be disguised and pursued on the sly". I had just changed the sentence from its previous form, "It is definitely better for a conflict to be disclosed than disguised, and pursued on the sly", and I'm feeling frustrated at leaving my work half-done (and at not having thought of the better structure before saving). If you agree and you have time, go ahead and make the change yourself. Otherwise I'll try to remember to do it when I get home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scutigera (talk • contribs) 21:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not "Activist", but "Wikipedia: Activist". Anyway, it's almost quitting time, so I'll get it myself when I get home. Thanks for your prompt attention. Scutigera (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have warned one user [Santoshlee1]] not to post unsoursed material and later his accounts were temporarily blocked. Now the same user has added lot of unsoursed material and wrong information to Indus Valley Civilisation on 31st July 2012 (today). Can you look into it?Rayabhari (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The user in question seems to have good intentions, but seems to be primarily trying to advance a particular point of view across articles. I added a few more to my watchlist. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edits to Skrillex
Your removal of my edits to the skrillex page leaves me with questions. Have you listened to Skrillex? Do you know what dubstep actually is? Did I not have enough Sources? I dislike it when people try to push music into genres were they don't belong, and i need to fix the mislabeling of skrillex as dubstep by the ignorant population. The quote i supplied is real, does wiki require a more legitimate source despite the quote being exactly the same? Also, the fact that he helped a metalcore band with some programming and vocals does not warrant him a label of metalcore. When it comes to placing music into a genre there are few references that are helpful and most are hurtful. Most Legitimate publications don't care if they correctly label music with a genre, which results in most columnists labeling bands with genres that aren't accurate. Outside of columnists and "professionals" any other reference on the internet is going to be labeled as "an opinion" and deemed unusable in wikipedia, am i correct? I know that trying to label music with a genre is a fool's job, but i can no longer stand by and have skrillex be called dubstep, or breaking benjamin be called alternative metal, or many other bands be mislabeld by the ignorant public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimsonokami (talk • contribs) 22:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I guess "the majority is always correct". Newspapers and publications can be wrong, as they are made of people, and these people don't care for a distinction between dubstep and electronic house. As once the meaning of awful was "filled with awe", it is now "Extremely bad or unpleasant"; and soon dubstep will no longer mean what it once meant, and will change into what people miss-use it for now. I do not hold any grudge against you or wikipedia for demanding "reliable sources" and exclusion of "opinion"; Instead I hold a grudge against the ingorant masses who continue to miss-use words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimsonokami (talk • contribs) 23:23, 31 July 2012
Honestly, as much as I love music, I think waaaay too much energy is spent here debating and edit-warring on genres. In most cases I don't get involved, but had I not reverted your edits to Skrillex someone else surely would've given that he's so strongly associated with dubstep (or brostep) in the press. I'm a big Beck fan, and a good friend of mine considers Beck to be "pop," which by some definitions I'd agree with; that doesn't diminish my appreciation for Beck. I don't care what people call his music. OhNoitsJamieTalk02:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Returning shortly after a block doing the same (obnoxious) thing? I'm 100% on-board with the second block. I'd go three months if it happened again. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. It seems you forgot to substitute the prod template over there, so I've fixed that. Please remember also to notify the article's author. That said, the page doesn't very notable to me either but they've provided some references so let's see what others think of it. De728631 (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, thanks for catching that. Funny thing is I almost always subst everything else, don't know why I often miss that with the prod template. Thanks again, OhNoitsJamieTalk02:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rule of Three (writing) and copywriting pages
Hi. I understand the sensitivity towards spam and I do believe that you are right to police spam links and have done an enviable task to date.
However, I think the external link for the Rule of Three (writing) page was valid.
The reason: it formed the basis for the information added to the section regarding the rule of three techniques used in copywriting, marketing and advertising.
As this external article forms the basis of the information added (and does not promote any services within the article) I think it unfair to label this link as spam. With that in mind, I would like to reinstate the article as an external source.
Secondly, I think the same argument can be applied to the text added to the Copywriting page, which was:
"As well as possessing a command of language, copywriters must master and apply a broad range of persuasive techniques, such as sales psychology, marketing methods such as AIDA and CAB and other linguistic devices such as the Rule of Three.[1]"
I'm not sure why you have deleted this minor addition. I think it is a short and valid point, which touches upon techniques widely used by copywriters, while cross referencing both its sources (internal wikipedia links to the relevant sections on AIDA and Rule of Three (writing)).
I also added the external link to the Rule of Three article as I felt that it was a non-promotional article that covers the technique in more detail.
Please note, there are also links to blogs and articles in the copywriting section which, as with the link that you have deleted, come from organisations that sell copywriting services but are not actually doing so within the link posted.
Copywriting is a commercial pursuit. It is to be expected that copywriting organisations will produce informative articles on the subject, without promoting themselves directly.
I added the external link to the Rule of Three article as I felt that it was a non-promotional article that covers the technique in more detail. Please note, there are also links to blogs and articles in the copywriting section which, as with the link which you have deleted, come from organisations that sell copywriting services but are not actually doing so within the link posted.
Hi, I read both of these policy documents before I took the trouble to create the wikipedia content.
I honestly don't see how the content or links can be classed as a conflict of interest ( I don't work for the organisation who published the external link which I used as the basis for the content).
Also I'm not sure how the link violates the External link policy.
Please could you illustrate:
1. How the link violates these policies.
2. How the external link contains self-promotional material.
3. How this external link differs from the the two existing external links on the Copywriting page.
I think it slightly unfair to keep the section on 'copywriting, marketing and advertising' on the Rule of Three (writing) page but not link to the article from which it came.
Reference your comment on my talk page, I have reviewed earlier versions of this article and have declined restoration on the basis that earlier versions still fail under speedy A7. Requesting editor has been notified. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"10:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to say I know Lexus since I'm an enthusiast of the marque. The reason why I removed Toyota as a manufacturer it's simple because it's not "Toyota" the one who is manufacturing. It's true that Lexus cars are built in Toyota manufacturing plants, but they are assembled in different assembling lines, they have their own quality standards and more importantly, the workforce and employees are different. So knowing that I can't say that these vehicles are manufactured by Toyota since not even the workers are from Toyota, they are from Lexus.
And Lexus don't have any more Toyota counterpart (rebadging) vehicle starting from 2005, where the marque was introduced in its own country Japan. The only vehicles which still have something related to Toyota in terms of platform sharing are the LX and GX which aren't even sold globally.
A Lexus is still ultimately made by Toyota Motor Corporation, just as the Lincoln MKS is made by Ford. I'm a Lexus owner myself, but I'm not going to pretend that it's not a rebadged Toyota Aristo. You are welcome to bring up your points on the talk page for Lexus, but it's not appropriate to make changes like that without a consensus.OhNoitsJamieTalk15:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ohnoitsjaime,
If your Lexus vehicle was made prior to 2005 (which is your case since you are talking about a Toyota Aristo either the 1st gen or 2nd gen) then your car is still a Lexus but rebadged as Toyota for some domestic and overseas markets. I understand your point and I will not struggle anymore regarding who is the manufacturer.
I pointed out earlier than other minos updates I added (nomenclature meaning and so as fixing F Sport instead of F-Sport since it's the correct way of spelling) were also removed with no reason. May I add them again?
Regarding your F-Sport related fixes; yes, those reverts were a mistake on my part. I thought I had corrected them, but I guess I missed a few. Thanks, OhNoitsJamieTalk02:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pawlenty
Yeah, I was too in the moment moving the talk comment and fixing the vandalism that had been sitting on the article page for too long to think it through. Good call. Nice to meet you - have seen you all over the place for years, but don't think we've interacted. Cheers. Tvoz/talk18:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are we doing wrong to violate anything by adding our non commercial website to the ostomy pages on wilipedia. We are Non commercial. We accept or contain no advertising - we promote no product or service - we list everyone in the ostomy world for free - we are basiclaly the wikipedia answer to the ostomy world - all we do is send free ostomy puppets to the millions of children in countries all over the world to help them to adjust to life with a bag. Do you wear an ostomy Bag? If not you cannot imagine how difficult it is for children to live life with a bag containine facel or urinary output or both is like.
How are we violating content on wilikpaedia. We ahve written books on the subject yes, and they sell but all the royalties are ploughed back into the puppets for kids - When we sed the puoppets out, they go with no commercial advertising materials or commercial information, just the puppet plus its stoma and bag, all of which we make at our expense. Tell me how we are infringing anything?
Good call on removing that section on comic sans. I removed the curse word monologue, actually I wanted to remove the whole thing, as you did,but I was worried a bunch of anti comic sans fans would have a fit. I think it was not notable as well.--98.87.89.184 (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you agree; I don't think a single Huffpost mention is enough to establish notability for inclusion. I'm not a big fan of extensive pop culture sections anyway; they are often too crufty. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-New Message-
Gaurangpotdar (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Thank you for you suggestion, i would do as you have instructed me. I use the Internet very rarely so I am in a lack of Puntuation.
Please give me your e-mail ID i would connect you when i will get time for the Internet[reply]
Dude, I'm a student of the college and have added the external link of the college fest. The old link that is present there is no longer valid. So I request you to kindly check before reverting any edits, don't just blindly do it. The link I had was the link of official college fest website. I won't add it again but you'll have to revert your changes now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooljais (talk • contribs) 07:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
if there are problems, i will just add references but pls. dont delete it just because you saw i edited it. i didnt even make that page. pls. do consider. thanks.
I don't care who made the pages. I don't send articles to AFD unless I think they deserve to be. With the exception of Jennifer Jolly, most of the pages you've been involved with don't meet our notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamieTalk13:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them are up for deletion, but they won't be deleted until the end of the week long WP:AFD process. Note that I said nothing about you being a paid editor in the AFD noms. If you challenge them (or engage in WP:MEATPUPPETRY) I will bring that up.OhNoitsJamieTalk14:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- oh well, il just do a refund if it gets deleted, i just want this done. its been quite a headache for 5 bucks each. no, i wont do meatpuppetry, that will just drag on it. i have a website business that sells products anyway, i was just doing this part time cause my stocks havent arrived yet. thanks.
Hi, you removed my reference to FreePIE in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_homebrew#GlovePIE,
since GlovePIE is a direct open source equivalent to GlovePIE its very relevant to have it in that article, so please undo your edit.
Hi, could you please undo your protection of Taiwan? Specifically, I think that it goes against the guideline that pages shouldn't be semi-protected for content disputes if autoconfirmed users are involved (WP:SEMI), and that it gives autoconfirmed editors an unfair edge in controlling the direction of the content. As the current level of disruption is manageable, I'd prefer that persistent IP edit warriors who refuse to discuss their changes be blocked individually, instead of having all IP editors locked out. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Followup) Actually, I can sort of see where you're coming from, what with dynamic IPs disrupting specific pages. I don't have a good solution, but it does feel like we're favouring the views of registered editors by having the article almost constantly under semi-protection... wctaiwan (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the dynamic IPs discussing the issue on the talk page. It's been protected many times before for the same reason. I was also under the impression that there is a pretty strong consensus for the current version (correct me if I'm wrong). It's troublesome to see never-ending disputes like this (Troubles, Greek/Macedonian/Turkish, etc). OhNoitsJamieTalk14:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, consider revising this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catalonia&diff=508626097&oldid=508624980 It restores a flag in the infobox which was deleted and justified by a politic. It also deletes a blank section with a map about "cultural expansion of Catalan" (whatever it means) where the image foot said it was the extension of the Catalan (which is false because it includes all Aragon). Sorry for my englsh wwhich is specially bad today.--Ssola (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your issue with too many external links. Is there any chance that we can keep just a few of the links? Perhaps two or three? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMZ1122 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I got a message from you regarding an edit to the Facebook Features page. I added a section for cover art. That was not an edit. That is a new addition to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akaliquid (talk • contribs) 19:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I posted an addition concerning the Zeek section, stating that a members were fighting the SEC allegations and provided three different links, all pertaining to this information (the third one was an audio, so I can understand why that was not accepted). I believe if WikiPages is to be relevant, it needs to provide both sides of the story, especially when there is a case currently on-going. So why was my information removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcgranahan (talk • contribs) 16:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I conjecture that you have some connection with St. Louis based on your editing history. Please dismiss if this premise is incorrect.
Dust off your Polaroid camera and show off that inner photographer in you. The first-ever Wikipedia Takes St. Louisphoto hunt kicks off Sat, Sept. 15, around noon in downtown St. Louis. Tour the streets of the Rome of the West with other Wikipedians and even learn a little St. Louis history. This event is a fun and collaborative way to enhance St. Louis articles with visual content. Novice photographers welcome! Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is Raj.
I think my last point is not clear.
The placing of links is done by someone to tarnish our image.
Our marketing is basically brick and mortar setting.
A simple google search shows our link in spam category....which damages our image and repute.
We are getting affected.Thanks.
Rajsharma1980 (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potato Valley Cafe
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Kashmiri people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Munir Dar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Since this week, I've been meaning to award you this barnstar. When I started seeing you around some time ago, I wondered how long problematic edits would have stayed in whatever article had you not been there. When I or another editor weren't/aren't there, you were/are. So thank you very much for that. And if you have room for one more, it would be greatly appreciated if you would watch over the Sexual intercourse article as well. That is, if you aren't already. Flyer22 (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I really appreciate it. It's a tough topic, trying to maintain a balance between WP:NOTCENSORED and the influences of editors with questionable motives. As such, I have high admiration for anyone else willing to wade into those waters, especially those who have much more patience than I do in terms of formulating lengthy and detailed points/counterpoints. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk04:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. And tough indeed, and I know that these articles aren't the only articles you watch over and focus reverting problematic edits on. What I stated about you being there when others aren't was extending to a variety of articles, like Adolescence. So thank you again. Never hesitate to drop me a line about something, especially if it has to do with sexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glentoran
You removed a small paragraph I posted in the recent history part of the Glentoran FC page. There was no reason whatsoever to do this as I didnot express opinions and used ONLY fact.
Please put my edit back on to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.87.149 (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. A web search of the terms suggests that the individual is on a campaign to give the subject a nickname, and decided that Wikipedia was the next platform to stand on. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry
I thought you were alluding to <censored> but after checking the talk page of TL article I see you were more likely referring to fans & promotion. Cheers, Tijfo098 (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. I spent some time dealing with (presumably) Lin's meatpuppets using Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle (inserting his name into as many articles as possible, etc.) I'm not going to argue against Lin's notability, but in general I detest the use of Wikipedia as a promotional tool. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
help help please. i added a SPEEDY to Brian Pike as blatant artist spam, but it doesn't appear on the list of current articles to be looked over. after over an hour searching around, i realize i can't find a link for HOW (the process) to get something actually on that list. little help please? cheers. Cramyourspam (talk) 07:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It did show up in Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion; I should know: I found it there and deleted it. Placing a {{db}} tag on a page will automatically list it in that category, which is checked fairly regularly. However, it's worth mentioning that the page in question was a long way from being unambiguously promotional (I removed it under A7; the only source was a passing mention in a local paper). Cramyourspam, you may want to consider such tags more carefully - not every page that's about a potentially commercial topic is necessarily WP:SPAM. Yunshui雲水12:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that Yunshui (I apparently forgot how cat tags work!) Re speedy; I'd agree with Yunshui; A7 is best for bios like that, even if the probably intention is self-promotion. G11 is more for articles using a lot of ad-speak with regards to a non-notable product/company. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Were it added by a disinterested, regular editor, it would not be a problem. When it's added by a single purpose spam only account with an obvious COI, it's considered to be link canvassing, which is not permitted regardless the quality of the link unless there is a community consensus for the link. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I should have taken the time to add an edit summary explaining my revert. BTW, now you've instilled in me a craving for a cup of coffee... OhNoitsJamieTalk17:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you've only edited two articles, and the warning was regarding adding spam link, I'd say that narrows it down. Hotel/travel links are not appropriate references, period. OhNoitsJamieTalk13:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found the answer to my first question, there is a "My Contributions" button at the top that I did not know about - I'm new to trying to contribute to Wikipedia, it appears I'm not so good at it! Regarding the edits, both of those links - the first regarding information about the Reserve, and the second regarding public holidays and those in Mozambican cities - are to websites from travel companies but they're also the best references I've ever seen on the net. The reserve article is very well researched and contains information about a place that is hard to research. The second edit, regarding public holidays, I included because I personally searched for a very long time to try to find a place where these dates were publicised. Isn't this information valuable? As it stands the revert back to the old version is actually completely incorrect (ex: Ramadan changes every year, but this article gives an actual month)
How exactly does quoting somebody's own words violate NPOV
That doesn't make much sense to me. Didn't Silverman send that tweet out? Hasn't it received some media coverage? By the way, this is a dynamic IP address (I get a new IP every time I reset my router) and I know for a fact I did not make those edits to the Sandra Fluke article. Since you seem so determined to keep this information out of Wikipedia, I'll just give in and let you have your way on this one. 67.234.156.92 (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a new section on a trivial item that did not receive widespread media coverage is pushing a point of view, especially given your source. Continue doing it and you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not adding it back and I probably won't be editing Wikipedia again. I don't see how the NPOV policy can be anything but a farce if using sources that have a different point of view than the old media is considered POV-pushing, but I'm not going to press this issue any further. 67.234.156.92 (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah...OK. I'm not here for the polemics, so don't expect any input from me there. Others told you the same thing I did; that better sources exists. Not sure why that was so hard to swallow. OhNoitsJamieTalk20:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right to urge edit summaries — especially for a university. I am accustomed editing jazz/music oriented articles that few pay attention to. Going forward, I'll be more precise. There are several articles that I have vowed to improve. The North Texas article, in my view, was originally patched together in a way that — like a lot of articles on wikipedia — was sophomoric and said very little about its purpose or significance. Making things worse, the things it DID say (spirit, Greeks, athletics, and the like) was poorly stated. In the next three weeks, I would like to tidy-up the inline citations. Eurodog (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; I'm not perfect myself with edit summaries. I didn't see any issues with the actual edits you were making to the NT article; keep up the good work! OhNoitsJamieTalk01:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that I was wrong, I really thought strawberrys weren't a food but you can send them so they clearly are, I hope I didn't cause too much trouble!
Hi Jamie.
Please bear with me.
I'm quite confused at the moment.
I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia & thought I was making a worthwhile contribution to a public article.
I read some guidelines encouraging me to make a contribution so I decided to do so in good faith.
I didn't have an account but I decided to annotate the Mazda 3 photo because of its inaccurate content.
I considered my behaviour to be just as geeky as that of the Mazda 3 owner with Pi displayed, so quite appropriate.
I'd thought of a username a few hours later, so I removed my annotation, created a Wikipedia account, & reannotated the photo so my username would appear against it.
However, my actions were interpreted by the security software as vandalism, so my annotation was automatically removed.
I followed instructions to reinstate my annotation & reported the false positive vandalism alert.
I'd ticked the minor edit box because I didn't realise what it meant, but now I do.
You then removed my annotation because, in your opinion, the Pi error didn't matter so my annotation was unnecessary.
I wasn't sure what to do, but somebody else changed the photo annotation from an emphasis of mathematics to humour.
I followed suit by annotating the photo again but with the humour lead.
I left a detailed explanation & felt quite pleased with my responsible effort.
Next thing I know, you've removed my edit & started threatening me.
I read some further guidelines which included not biting newcomers.
I really don't understand your motivation.
Are you very opinionated & insist on getting your own way, or are we simply having a communication issue?
The photo has been included for its comedic content, which is subjective & open to opinion.
You're in a position to guide me to do things properly or be obstructive & prolong the learning curve.
I like to think I have a good social conscience, to the extent that I've emailed somebody at the University of California Irvine, the source of the photo, to try to alert the Mazda 3 owner of the potentially embarrassing error on the car.
I'd like to think somebody would do the same sort of thing for me.
So, how can I best help you to help me make sense of this situation, so we can all simply enjoy the excellent resource that constitutes Wikipedia?
Thanks for your time.XYMonozygote (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should be of no surprise that 190 went ahead and continued edit-warring at Schmidt Sting Pain Index. The editor is rather active, but unfortunately extremely abrasive and strong-headed, with a penchant for rude edit comments. Glaucus (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you removed a contribution I made into the "Crowd Funding" article. Your reason is SPAM but actually it's not. The link does send to an external website which is useful for people who search a list of crowdfunding websites. If you consider my contribution as a spam, how should you consider the "Comparison of crowd funding services" article which is also linked in the article ? Please understand there is a non-sense here and a lack of objectivity. So please remove your edit considering my contribution is fully compliant with the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnedelec (talk • contribs) 12:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your opinion that it's not spam, it meets Wikipedia's definition of spam. If you continue to add it, your account will be blocked. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: User:Pakiman19 -- I noted as I was leaving a notice that I had tagged this editor's latest contribution as spam that you had given the individual a final warning about contributing spam. I thought you might like to be notified; feel free to handle this as you see fit. UbelowmeUMe21:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jamie, I wanted to note that IRWolfie- has made a serious accusation of canvassing against you in this thread. I believe you have already attempted to explain your behavior was appropriate, but serious accusations cannot be left without a response, in my opinion.--Milowent • hasspoken14:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rodeo Clowns in Clown Article
Can you please explain why you have reverted the clown article to include 'rodeo clowns'. I asked this question in the talk pages but have had no reponse. My reasons for wanting to exclude this section are in the talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robynthehode (talk • contribs) 21:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the section without explaining in the edit summary why you were removing it. Furthermore, rodeo clowns aren't completely unrelated from the concept of a clown (wild costumes, etc). There's nothing wrong with including a short section in Clown on them. OhNoitsJamieTalk12:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hey, remember this revert you did a month ago? The new accounts/IPs were removing that image because it was being used the wrong way. The LOL on heart candies for Valentine's Day most likely means "Lots of Love", not "laugh out loud". I couldn't believe I missed that, but I guess now we know. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. It's hard to say for sure what the manufacturer intended it to mean, but I'd lean toward your assessment. Good call removing it. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
External links removal
Hello, thanks for your warning. I'm new to Wikipedia "edit" and I didn't know I couldn't put link to material I created. But at the same time every single link I put was pertinent to the topic and adding extra informations. Maybe I still don't know how it's working Wikipedia, but I wonder how to implement a link by suggesting it in the talk page, if the talk page of the related topic had no activity in the last months or even years, and probably nobody is going to see it. Or even if I'm creating a brand new topic, I guess it would be the same problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phidias81 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message Jamie. We thought that the reports (e.g Niger and Angola) should be online especially because they are free-to-access independent reports that are sanctioned by government but written independently of them and their content isn't available elsewhere. How would you feel if the government were to put up the links- would this be agreeable?
NDD DMA (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Natalia[reply]
Responded on my talkpage, but to keep this in one place: in addition to NOTBROKEN, there's also the issue of creating problems/inconsistencies at the articles affected (for example, I noticed a lot of changes to alphabetical lists without associated changes to the entry's position in the list). If it were just a matter of redirecting someone could write a bot to do it. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the issue of alphabetization, but that only applies to a few of the edits I made; I see no point in undoing all of my edits. Knock yourself out if it makes you feel better. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure; every once in awhile, there is an intervening edit from a different editor that causes the standard undo/rollback to miss all of the vandalism. Easy to miss! OhNoitsJamieTalk17:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie,
I encountered something strange that you may be able to remedy. Please look at the commons file "DE CDB 2 1 090.jpg" on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DE_CDB_2_1_090.jpg You'll see it's an empty picture with 1 pixel. But below you'll see that this uploader has uploaded 620 duplicate empty files. 620! How must we deal with this? Is this something for a mass deletion? Please deal with this, I'm not an expert here. Thanks and Greeting from the Netherlands, Loranchet (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Micromax GPL violation
The pages cited are from the consumer court forum of the country which hosts the major operations of the said company, the other link was included as it is a google android support forum and has a direct response from a google public relations employee regarding the matter. They are aware and have been notified but the issue has not yet been resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.54.14 (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks wiki for guide me about minor changes in any page and for practice we need to use "Sandbox". Will you please guide me about how i can edit any good pages ?
