For what it is worth, I did not add those comments about being included in Who's Who in two different Universities 20 years apart, or almost nothing else in the article. Some of that material came from biographies of me which appeared online at various TV stations, and book publisher's websites. I did correct one flatly inaccurate but uncontroversial line, some time ago. Years ago, one editor told me I needed to add what computers I helped run at NASA. Since they told me I should add it, I did. Then another editor said I shouldn't be the one adding things. A few editors claim I have not done enough worthy things to merit an article. That's their opinions, and they are welcome to it. Other editors have felt the article was appropriate. Recently, one of the anti-inclusion editors added quite a few (Citation Needed) markers on the article. Since I am not allowed to add things to the article about me, I provided quite a few sources or citations in the Talk section. I also notified the editor who added the Citations Needed markers of the citation I placed in the Talk section. That editor did not reply, or update the page. Since then, six months later, those citations have not been added to the article. Many of the corrections I have suggested in the Talk section over the years remain there, unaltered. While my life will not end if the article is deleted, I admit it is nice to have it. So, when people complain about my lack of meritorious qualifications, and factual material is deleted, it makes me wonder if this is just a ploy by those anti-inclusion editors. If you delete the accomplishments or things which have happened in my life, then it is easier to justify deleting the article. No offense is intended toward you. [[User:Philkon|Phil Konstantin]] ([[User talk:Philkon|talk]]) 19:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I did not add those comments about being included in Who's Who in two different Universities 20 years apart, or almost nothing else in the article. Some of that material came from biographies of me which appeared online at various TV stations, and book publisher's websites. I did correct one flatly inaccurate but uncontroversial line, some time ago. Years ago, one editor told me I needed to add what computers I helped run at NASA. Since they told me I should add it, I did. Then another editor said I shouldn't be the one adding things. A few editors claim I have not done enough worthy things to merit an article. That's their opinions, and they are welcome to it. Other editors have felt the article was appropriate. Recently, one of the anti-inclusion editors added quite a few (Citation Needed) markers on the article. Since I am not allowed to add things to the article about me, I provided quite a few sources or citations in the Talk section. I also notified the editor who added the Citations Needed markers of the citation I placed in the Talk section. That editor did not reply, or update the page. Since then, six months later, those citations have not been added to the article. Many of the corrections I have suggested in the Talk section over the years remain there, unaltered. While my life will not end if the article is deleted, I admit it is nice to have it. So, when people complain about my lack of meritorious qualifications, and factual material is deleted, it makes me wonder if this is just a ploy by those anti-inclusion editors. If you delete the accomplishments or things which have happened in my life, then it is easier to justify deleting the article. No offense is intended toward you. [[User:Philkon|Phil Konstantin]] ([[User talk:Philkon|talk]]) 19:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
: Removing triva is not "anti-inclusion." You will be hard pressed to find any other biographical articles that mention a subject's high school GPA and what clubs they were in. Your concerns with the article belong on the article's talk page. If you want other opinions regarding what the article and and shouldn't include, please create an [[WP:RFC]], though it's probably make sense to wait a week for the result of the [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phil_Konstantin_(2nd_nomination)|newly filed AfD]]. Regarding your comments about trying to address the "citation needed" tags, websites created or maintained by you (americanindian.net) do not ualify as [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 20:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
: Removing triva is not "anti-inclusion." You will be hard pressed to find any other biographical articles that mention a subject's high school GPA and what clubs they were in. Your concerns with the article belong on the article's talk page. If you want other opinions regarding what the article and and shouldn't include, please create an [[WP:RFC]], though it's probably make sense to wait a week for the result of the [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phil_Konstantin_(2nd_nomination)|newly filed AfD]]. Regarding your comments about trying to address the "citation needed" tags, websites created or maintained by you (americanindian.net) do not ualify as [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 20:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
== Editing "Ass" ==
But "@$$" is ''too'' a vulgar slang for you-know-what!
Revision as of 18:56, 1 September 2019
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. Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform.
Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account.
What do I need to do?
Only to follow the instructions in this message.
Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.
How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
Hey, so the block has passed, but I checked my talk page and noticed that I was apparently blocked for editing Fear. I made no edits to it, nor had I visited the page. I've gotten other messages saying that I edited something even though I did not.
You can see in the contribution history that someone using this IP address did edit Fear multiple times in February. The block wasn't necessarily for a specific edit, but rather for the aggregate of bad edits from that address, regardless if it was from one person or not. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. I'm actually at school rn and a ton of people in my class are using the same IP as I do, so it may be one of them.
But, it may have been a group of idiots wanting to vandalize Wikipedia. I think everyone has the same messages as I do.
On my talk page, people were talking about Fortnite, like "You have failed and have nearly been banned for oranges." Those edits were made by some other guy in my class, and not me.
People can be idiots sometimes.
Would you check....
The latest entry on my talk page, to make sure it's on the up-and-up, in light of [1]. Please let me know if you believe it wise to follow through on my promise. Thanks! 78.26(spin me / revolutions)20:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no page on the "brothers" as far as I'm aware. The page on Ed that was deleted was created by a banned troll, (who successfully masqueraded as a good faith newbie user until they were blocked and showed their true colors in June of 2018). The requesting account was created a few months after that, and the tone of their writing and topic choices are suspiciously familiar. I'm going to file an SPI to be sure. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Krassenstein Article
Ohnoitsjamie Hello I'm relatively new and exploring new territory, i.e. deleted Articles. Saw the recent news about the Krassenstein Brothers ban from Twitter, came to Wikipedia, found a deleted Article and now I'm wondering 1) why was it deleted? They seem noteable. 2) Now that they are back in the news, are they noteable now? Mostly I'm wondering about how to tell why the Article got deleted, because I suspect that the Article's creator got banned for multiple accounts and I wonder if the Article didn't get deleted for that reason. Also more weirdness; my attempt at a "ping" text results in a deleted user page.Tym Whittier (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that you're new, and I suspect that you already know why it was deleted. I'm certainly not going to restore the text on the request from a user who's idoiosyncratic writing style is uncannily similar that that of a blocked account.OhNoitsJamieTalk13:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm surprised to learn I have any kind of "writing style" at all. But okay. FYI I don't really care about whether the Article gets resurrected or not. Like I said this is a learning exercise. I see lots of RS on the topic, and a deleted account, and restricted information on why it was deleted, and no response to my question as to whether or not it's noteworthy now. But okay. Moving on...Tym Whittier (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm certainly not going to restore the text on the request from a user who's idoiosyncratic writing style is uncannily similar that that of a blocked account." Well I just discovered the "sockpuppet investigation" thing. At first I thought I was accused of being "Jeff2345" something-or-other, but now it looks like I'm supposed to be "LovelyGirl7". I'm not, nor have I ever been, either of those two accounts. However, to dispel any notions I might have that the motivations behind the accusation are less that "pure", could you please provide me one example of text that has been written by either of these accounts (or any others) that is "idiosyncratic" (<--The correct spelling of the word) and/or "uncannily similar"? I'm paranoid enough as it is, and it would do me a lot of good to know this is an legitimate, "good faith" and/or honest effort to root out a sock puppet, vs. "something else". Otherwise, I'm content to let Wikipedia Policy, rules, guidelines, whatever play themselves out. Mostly I'm concerned with how long this cloud is going to hang over me, and what impact it might have in the future.Tym Whittier (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I note here on your talk page that you've ignored a polite request to substantiate your belief in a "idiosyncratic writing style" that is "uncannily similar", and "strikingly similar" to some Sock Account. You cared enough to use the words in order to influence other Editors (and now I assume Administrators), and yet instead of backing them up, you've attempted to shoehorn other allegations instead. This is classic manipulative technique, whether you know what you are doing or not. An intelligent Administrator will notice this inability to support your own allegation, and your dogged determination to achieve a desired outcome no matter what the cost is to the truth, and Wikipedia policy, ideals, etc... I'll let the IP address thing speak for itself. Suggest you "put down the stick" and go back to doing whatever it is you do, and let me get back to learning how to Edit Wikipedia. FYI I won't ask for the boomerang thing, because I have a higher goal here than causing problems for others, but that doesn't mean some Administrator won't do it anyways. I guess it all depends on if you've done this kind of thing before, and how willing you are to admit that you are wrong. Strategically, your biggest mistake is that you failed to prepare for the possibility that you are wrong. You're wrong. Had you done more "due diligence" you might have seen it for yourself. Had you phrased your accusations in more tempered terms, you might have more credibility, and a path to "backtrack" from when it turns out you were wrong. That's a strategic statement. The more "human" statement is I really don't care what all the background is. Maybe you are really this protective of this Article and maybe you just really hate this troll this much. Maybe instead of all of that, you should consider the "why" of the foundational principals of Wikipedia, and exactly what it is that you are trying to protect? What if everyone did this, i.e. used your example as a role model. One of my core beliefs is "Leadership is by Example", and in case you aren't aware, making an accusation like this is a form of Leadership, which you've volunteered to assume. With Leadership comes power (the ability to get someone's account blocked, or whatever), and also with Leadership comes Responsibility, meaning you are responsible for your actions, and responsibility means accountability. I suspect the Administrator that reviews this investigation (whatever the correct language is) will look at your conduct with the same objective eye that they will view mine. AFAIC, I'm the less experienced Editor making (more or less) the same kinds of mistakes one would expect from an inexperienced Editor that makes a good-faith effort to both "Be Bold" while trying to learn, and contribute. My mistakes speak for themselves, and if I have to, I can do a good job of "contributing" as well. In fact this post is one example. Look at how much you are either learning, or refusing to learn, during this whole investigation (meaning the choice is up to you). Again, on the "human" level, I have no animosity towards you, or anyone else. I'm sure it's frustrating to have to deal with a lot of this stuff, but even though that is true, there's still an institutional responsibility involved. Wikipedia must protect itself from trolls, but it also must protect itself from Editors that make false allegations in an effort to get someone blocked, out of some sense of "this is ours, not yours", or whatever. If I felt like digging, I could probably come up with some kind of analysis. Thus far, from my perspective with regard to the Article on Gab, it appears to me to be primarily ideological (it's our leftist Article and not your right-wing Article), but I don't think that's true for your case. Not sure what it IS though. Anyways, that's the offer. Either reconsider and take another, and more constructive tack, or I'll be forced to spend the time & energy trying to hammer all of the above into a shape that better conforms to Wikipedia policies for sock investigations.Tym Whittier (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as an addendum, I don't mean "manipulative" in the human-to-human sense of the word; I mean "manipulation of process", specifically the Wikipedia Process for Sock Investigations. I may not know much Wikipedia Policy, but I understand institutions and bureaucracies in a general sense. The have systems to protect things, and they have systems to prevent those systems from being corrupted. What you've done is made an attempt at corrupting the process of of protecting Wikipedia from trolls (or whatever). Probably not the first time this has happened. As a Leader you have a basic minimum of responsibility, i.e. (and known in other realms) as "due diligence". Failing to do the due diligence us a symptom of the corruption of process. Deliberately, inadvertently, IDK. What matters is the outcome is the same, and it's bad.Tym Whittier (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. That said, I'm not here for debate and discussion, nor was I seeking a performance review. I'm here to build and maintain an encyclopedia. If I had been fairly certain that you were LovelyGirl7, I would've already blocked you per WP:DUCK. I was not sure, so I sought additional opinions from others familiar with the matter. I still strongly suspect that you are not as "new" as you claim to be, and I'm not sure if you're really here to build an encyclopedia. If you are here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia, go forth and do that. OhNoitsJamieTalk23:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
unwarranted blocking
Please be more careful about who you're blocking and why. Three times, I have been blocked by you for alleged vandalism. I have never made changes to any Wikipedia article that can in any way be interpreted as vandalism. The vast majority of my Wikipedia edits are minor grammatical changes. In keeping with Wikipedia's articles on assuming good faith, I'm going to assume that, rather than being an intentional bully, you honestly think you're doing the right thing -- although if that's the case, your interpretation of what counts as "vandalism" is completely indefensible. All I'm asking is that you in turn exercise good faith and stop jumping to the conclusion that edits you don't happen to agree with are somehow "vandalism." Perhaps a review on Wikipedia's definition and policies regarding actual vandalism might be helpful to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.123.223.156 (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the helpful feedback. Unfortunately, there aren't any blocks on the IP that you're currently using, so I have no idea which blocks you are talking about. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, based on what you've just said, and also based on my own brief research, I'm going to change the nature of my complaint. If I'm taking the time to edit Wikipedia, it's usually on my iPhone. I don't know how to look up my iPhone IP address other than to use "what's my IP" websites, all of which give me different answers, none of them geographically accurate. I don't know anything about IP addresses -- I don't know if the inaccurate geographical IP results are common, or problematic, or what. I suppose it's possible that this might even lead to genuine confusion on Wikipedia's IP tracking. (Or maybe it's not possible, I honestly don't know how any of that works.) If that's the explanation, it would make sense to me that a well-meaning editor would see vandalism made by one user and, through no fault of his own, attribute it to a different user with a similar "floating IP." Again, I'm not standing behind any of this, just positing it as a theory. However, if any of this is even possible, it illustrates all the more reason to exercise caution when blocking people based only on their IP address. You could end up blocking the wrong person. I'm pointing this out to you in particular because you're the one who keeps blocking me. Again, I'm assuming you mean well. But it's getting annoying to repeatedly see "You have been blocked by Ohnoitsjamie. Reason for the block: vandalism."
Incidentally, I am aware that such misunderstandings might be avoided if I could simply log in with a username before making changes, but I was once targeted for harrassment by a fellow Wikipedia user, and it got so disturbing, I frankly don't feel safe keeping an easily trackable username. Wikipedia was unable / unwilling to help me, as my complaint / plea for help got caught up in an endless online debate, while the harasser continued his constant assaults, which got very ugly. I don't want to ever risk going through that again, which is why I refuse to use official usernames on Wikipedia. (I don't have much of a trackable social media presence anymore due to the same incident.)
At the risk of repeating myself, I again want to emphasize that I assume that you're trying to be constructive, but in blocking people based on IP, you've -- perhaps through no fault of your own -- repeatedly blocked the Wikipedia equivalent of an innocent bystander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.123.223.156 (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunately unavoidable that constructive editors are affected by blocks on dynamic IPs (i.e, IPs that frequently get reassigned to different users/devices). We have no way of knowing how "stable" an IP is; that is, how long it will be assigned to a given user. In some cases, we need to block entire ranges of IP addresses to prevent vandalism. Anytime I block a range, I examine the edits from that range first and do my best to avoid blocking ranges where a fair amount of constructive edits are originating from. Regarding the harassment issues you had when you created and account, did you report the issues to WP:ANI or a similar venue? OhNoitsJamieTalk17:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's definitely a competence issue with most of the edits, but I don't think they are in bad faith, and the main account wasn't under an active block. Not obvious block evasion, they might just keep forgetting their credentials (which goes back to WP:CIR). I'm on my way out the door, but feel free to give them some warnings for poor sourcing/test edits, etc. If they aren't able to figure out how Wikipedia works, we can block then. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohnoitsjamie! It's been awhile since we've last talked! I hope you're having a great day and that life is treating you well! :-) I just wanted to let you know that I changed the 72 hour block you placed on KevinCarlo27 to be indefinite and due to repeated BLP violations in his edit summaries and talk page edits. They contained unsubstantiated accusations about (and toward) Mariel Rodriguez Padilla, on top of blatant insults and obnoxious rants about that person. I think that an indefinite block here is the best response to the edits made. If you have any questions, concerns, objections, or if you disagree with the change I made to the block (and notice), please let me know (just make sure to ping me in your response here) and I'll be happy to discuss it with you and come to an agreeable solution. I doubt you'll mind what I did at all and I'm sure you'll agree, but I wanted to message you and give you a heads up just in case. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)13:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. The restored version was nearly identical to the deleted version, so it was eligible for CSD:G4. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I repaired the link. A blocked sockpuppet had deleted the link to CUSO, presumably because the sock recreated an afd-deleted article about a subject with that surname and did not like that it redirected to a Canadian organization. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mechanical Keyboarder is another one to keep an eye on regarding adolescent topics. And regardless of adolescent topics, the editor adds unsourced "clarifications" to articles. I'm not saying that the editor is a sock of anyone. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suspicious, but that account has been around awhile. Thanks for the heads up!
Hey there! A couple days, I made some copyedits to Milind Deora. The next day, you reverted them, with the edit summary "inept spamming". I don't know what you were referring to, but I assume it was just a mistake (the one thing you removed that I didn't add was a citation in the "External Links" heading, so maybe that played some role).
An indefinite block will be needed here as an obvious sock of the IP you just blocked: 2600:1700:9A90:5990:6405:2E2C:973E:CA7C Amaury • 16:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC
Site beautytohealth.com is blacklisted by some Autobots used by competitors. We tried to add a link and that' when we knew it is blacklisted. Please check ips and usernames to verify.
You are barking up the wrong tree. That site doesn't come close to meet WP:MEDRS guidelines, and as such I have no interest in seeing it removed from the meta blacklist. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in getting any mentions on Wikipedia. I would appreciate if the website is removed from the blacklist.
Does this mean that anyone can spam any website on wikipedia and get it blacklisted?
question-begging aside, this has already been answered on the blacklist page; try reading the response again. Your site is not blacklisted locally on Wikipedia; it is blacklisted globally on meta. You can take your petition to meta, and I'll be happy to chime in with my $A0.02 there. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire invitation
270° panorama overlooking La Jolla Shores Beach as seen from the Martin Johnson House, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, during a late August sunset. Photo by Gregg M. Erickson
Hi, you recently blocked User:49.150.58.202 for disruptive editing - thank you! Unfortunately, the user continues to misuse their talk page. Is it possible to revoke an IP's talk page access? Would you consider doing so for this IP? Many thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You recently blocked this user for 72 hours. You may want to extend the block as the same user has been making the same disruptive edits under several IP addresses (see here for another example). Rikster2 (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie, you kindly blocked User:49.150.58.202 for 1 week recently. They are the IP trying to create an article on their talk page despite frequent requests that they not do so. The block just expired, and I'm afraid they're right back at it: [3]. Any chance you could take a look? Many thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Block evasion
Hi Jamie. You blockedTheCrown15 here yesterday for disruptive edits however I see they are making similar edits using an IP address today. I could take this to SPI but I thought perhaps as the blocking admin you may be interested. If you look at the articles they edit and the edits they make it would seem to me they are highly likely connected. As far as I can tell TheCrown15 is most likely a sock of another blocked master account (User:BushidoBrown). Are you open to looking into this or would you prefer I take it to SPI? If you are I'm happy to show you some diffs. Robvanvee15:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you hid a username in this page's history. I kindly suggest hiding edit summaries as well, because the username also appears in several of them, so it's not really hidden at all. Deli nk (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re your cmt at AIV
Hi! just in regards to your comment, yes not vandalism, but unconstructive nonetheless -- at least from where I was standing (no edit summary, at the start of the article, a link about a museum of the suburb (?), and repeated attempts despite the warnings). Surpassing the final warning, of course I was going to report to AIV... Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆talk15:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a competence issue; user is new to Wikipedia, kind of stumbling through it. That said, a block is appropriate if the user continues to bungle things up and doesn't respond to talk page feedback. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stop deleting factual information just based on your personal opinion. Ask for a consensus.
Consider this your last warning for WP:COI edits. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
You have twice deleted something which is factually correct. I'd expect more than one person's opinion before deleting something, or calling it useless. How many other editors did you consult to determine if those lists were "useless"? At Rice, the list came from a student committee (FYI: I was not a participant in any way). Only about 20 students were included in the list the year I was included. I don't remember how many at SDSU were included.
"Factually correct" doesn't mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia. Cleaning up an article doesn't require "consensus" unless there are disagreements from other "neutral" editors. Per WP:COI, you should not be editing your own article (unless it's to remove blatant vandalism or unsourced assertions), but you're welcome to bring up concerns and suggestions on the talk page. The article needs plenty more pruning to remove trivia that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia (GPAs, etc). Feel free to file an WP:RFC on the talk page for the article if you want input on that. OhNoitsJamieTalk13:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, I did not add those comments about being included in Who's Who in two different Universities 20 years apart, or almost nothing else in the article. Some of that material came from biographies of me which appeared online at various TV stations, and book publisher's websites. I did correct one flatly inaccurate but uncontroversial line, some time ago. Years ago, one editor told me I needed to add what computers I helped run at NASA. Since they told me I should add it, I did. Then another editor said I shouldn't be the one adding things. A few editors claim I have not done enough worthy things to merit an article. That's their opinions, and they are welcome to it. Other editors have felt the article was appropriate. Recently, one of the anti-inclusion editors added quite a few (Citation Needed) markers on the article. Since I am not allowed to add things to the article about me, I provided quite a few sources or citations in the Talk section. I also notified the editor who added the Citations Needed markers of the citation I placed in the Talk section. That editor did not reply, or update the page. Since then, six months later, those citations have not been added to the article. Many of the corrections I have suggested in the Talk section over the years remain there, unaltered. While my life will not end if the article is deleted, I admit it is nice to have it. So, when people complain about my lack of meritorious qualifications, and factual material is deleted, it makes me wonder if this is just a ploy by those anti-inclusion editors. If you delete the accomplishments or things which have happened in my life, then it is easier to justify deleting the article. No offense is intended toward you. Phil Konstantin (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removing triva is not "anti-inclusion." You will be hard pressed to find any other biographical articles that mention a subject's high school GPA and what clubs they were in. Your concerns with the article belong on the article's talk page. If you want other opinions regarding what the article and and shouldn't include, please create an WP:RFC, though it's probably make sense to wait a week for the result of the newly filed AfD. Regarding your comments about trying to address the "citation needed" tags, websites created or maintained by you (americanindian.net) do not ualify as reliable sources. OhNoitsJamieTalk20:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editing "Ass"
But "@$$" is too a vulgar slang for you-know-what!
