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.
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!
Talk archives
PLEASE LEAVE NEW COMMENTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE.
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?
I also explained on the talk page and you didn't answer there. Why do you do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.228.119.51 (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the blurb at the top of the page. It's there so I don't have to explain WP:EL ten times a day. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
- Lawyer blogs clearly do not meet WP:Reliable sources policies. Read the policy link, please. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:53, 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]
- You need to request an unblock at User_talk:Purpler0ckofficial; see here for info on requesting to be unblocked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[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. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 simply used the standard warning template, Template:uw-test1. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:10, 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. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie, since I remember that you have experience dealing with ROC articles, so I need your help with something. There is an User:Kintetsubuffalo that insists on putting a tag about the Japanese rule of Taiwan on a organization that started in Mainland China. I've started a discussion of this matter at Talk:Republic of China, and I invited the User to discuss about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKintetsubuffalo&action=historysubmit&diff=433070521&oldid=433063277 So What should I do in this matter? If you can maybe give your opinion on the subject or show me how to use third opinion (never used it before), it would be great. Thanks T-1000 (talk) 18:49, 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. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove talk page access.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indef'd, protected. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:39, 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]
- Yep, thought of the same thing shortly after the block. It's fixed now. Thanks again. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're very welcome :) .Jasper Deng (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've just found yet another sock, Samuelboyle10 (talk · contribs).Jasper Deng (talk) 03:30, 10 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 page already has disclaimers that it's intended for notable dating websites. Also see our policies on conflict of interest and single purpose accounts. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Jamie, how does Wikipedia define notable? I'd just like to know when it's eligible to be listed. -Jimmysparkle
- WP:WEB would apply. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:55, 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]
- I'm not seeing anything wrong with the sources in this diff. Which of those are you claiming is a forum? OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:36, 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. [1] 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?!). [2] 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." [3] is a half hour long interview which validates the statement right before it, but not the two statements before that. [4] 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]
- I would greatly appreciate a response to the above. Otherwise I will assume that you agree that the section needs to be removed. 206.188.32.1 (talk) 20:29, 13 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). OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:14, 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]
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]
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.
Thank you for your time Jcooper1 (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If he doesn't meet Wikipedia notability standards, there's no point in mentioning him in the article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how these names...
(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]
I see that on your user page you state you live in San Diego. Perhaps you maybe interested in joining the San Diego WikiProject, or the Balboa Park GLAM? If so we'd enjoy having you. Until then 'Stay Classy'. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the links, I mostly likely will join both. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:55, 10 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]
- I already explained on your talk page that some attorney's blog does not meet our WP:Reliable sources guidelines. I'm not explaining it again. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hi ohno. i think you might be perfect to help squelch apparent article-subject-advocate-undos in Aelita Andre. The article is about a kid whose parents seem to have bought her a show at a vanity gallery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aelita_Andre&action=history
cheers Cramyourspam (talk) 23:06, 16 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, OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
The Milner Schools is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be
deleted.
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 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]
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.
- Regardless of the nature of the link, we do not permit single purpose accounts to canvass Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
- Nothing wrong with the link per se, but we don't permit single purpose accounts to link canvas. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:33, 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]
- Please read WP:SPA and WP:EL. I'm not responding further. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:51, 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]
- See WP:BAND; your project doesn't come close to meeting that criteria. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:11, 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]
- See the WP:CORP notability policy. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:13, 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. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:35, 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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT
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.
Dovelyone (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie, could you have a look at this discussion, and the users Kandathil and Kannadiga123, which look like socks. Pretty clear case of WP:DUCK I feel. Lynch7 13:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Socks of each other or another user? I'm not familiar enough with the discussion/editors to see the DUCK part. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:29, 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. Lynch7 16:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just happened to see this. Kannadiga123 (talk · contribs) has been indeffed and Kandathil (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 1 week by MuZemike. — Abhishek Talk to me 02:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well :) Lynch7 03:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't around much today; glad it worked out. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:17, 27 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. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetwofour (talk • contribs) 19:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because as I explained in the edit summary, we don't need the page to be cluttered with every incident in which a fad occurs. See WP:TRIVIA (and in your case, see WP:COI). OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the page is already being cluttered with instances, but I see your point. I'm glad you took down the TV post as well. If it would help, I don't need to plug the radio station, I did that simply for verification purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetwofour (talk • contribs) 21:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point; I've cleaned up it a bit more. Thanks for being understanding. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the article Résumé you deleted an internal link between articles as spam. As you request, I read Wikipedia's policies on spam. I see them addressing external links not internal ones. Can you explain this? Senator2029 (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize that the addition was in good faith, but I don't see how linking a single job search company (out of many) is appropriate on that particular page. As far as trying to de-orphan the article, I'd look at "What links here" on Monster.com and other sites for better examples. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for you input. I'll check into that. — Senator2029 (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie, can you help me understand what online sources are viable? The nature of this topic -- Digital_marketing_engineer -- is web-centric and fast changing, which means there is much more content (volume and quality) online than in printed form. Would, for example, sourcing nytimes.com be appropriate over an industry expert's blog? How about trade publications and their blogs? User_talk:64.127.72.52
- Notable trade publications are usually fine, as would be the sorts of sources you'd find in Google news. Blogs are rarely appropriate, unless you are quoting a notable individual. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. One of the sources was a blog post that was republished in an industry online publication (link - also search the title); I linked to the original work, not the republished version. Perhaps I should link to both? Also, this blog is a top rated blog by AdAge, a highly regarded industry publication. It seems the Creative Professionals (1) notable people clause (1 - The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors) would apply given the web-centric nature of the topic. The other blog post was of a person I met last year and has a ton of knowledge of this topic, but is not publicly ranked as high. That post seemed to be more explanatory though, which helps the topic understanding/definition process.
Note that a nytimes.com article is likely to speak to a broader general audience and less likely to hit the deeper points of this topic; in other words, people who know a lot about this topic are more likely to read the referenced blogs than nytimes.com for information about this topic. Thanks in advance for any feedback as this will shape how I source. I find sourcing online topics more difficult given the perceived lesser significance of the online medium by editors, yet this is often where the most insightful, advanced, current information is first found for web-related topics (parallels Wikipedia v Britannica). Thanks. User_talk:64.127.72.52 —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- WebPro news looks to be OK. The blog of a "person you met last year" not so much. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I will put the republished article on WebProNews back in as a source. All done, thanks. User_talk:64.127.72.52 —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Isn't that criteria supposed to be used with Oversight? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh...it's one of the "select reason" options with RevDel, so I assume RevDel is fine for that purpose. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oversighters get the suppression option when using RevDel though—that's why it's in MediaWiki:Revdelete-reason-dropdown. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have oversight options. If you do, feel free to oversight the edits. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, I'm just another admin. =) I have used that criteria, though. By the way, User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js is really useful for quickly checking user access levels. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, thanks for the handy link! OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please take the time to explain exactly how I added commentary and personal analysis into articles. I don't understand. I was trying to report objectively about the cull and the resulting boycott, from a neutral point of view. (The fact that not many people know about the cull and the boycott does not make it 'propaganda' does it? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to educate people about what is happening?) I may be biased (see my user page) but that does not mean all the content should be removed, especially by an editor who happens to live in the country under discussion.
Please take the time to explain exactly how I added commentary and personal analysis into articles. I don't understand. I was trying to report objectively about the cull and the resulting boycott, from a neutral point of view. (The fact that not many people know about the cull and the boycott does not make it 'propaganda' does it? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to educate people about what is happening?) I may be biased (see my user page) but that does not mean all the content should be removed, especially by an editor who happens to live in the country under discussion. —Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC).
- Please read WP:SOAPBOX and WP:UNDUE, both of which you've already been notified about. I'm not discussing it further. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read those, but hey, how kind of you to explain so thoroughly to a newbie like myself. I really appreciate the patient and helpful attitude.
- Noodlenicky (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trouted
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
|
![[2]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dr3S8zqPnj4/TUvzpdrnqWI/AAAAAAAAUJQ/IpvKl0WYzTE/s1600/transparency.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://www.theoildrum.com/files/Screen%20shot%202011-04-26%20at%208.31.07%20AM.png){kind=link}