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.
<!- =========================================================== ->
Hi. When you recently edited Natore District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abdul Hamid (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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removing External Link in for [Application Server] and mentioning Wikipedia is not a directory, how you dare! Wikipedia just got 15M euros from donations as it mainly serves to make an apology for large corporations, probably those that contribute to these donations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.99.34.136 (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not making much sense. In any case, we already have [article] which is about notable app servers. If you continue to add links that violate WP:EL and WP:NOT, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, could you explain why you are reverting my edit at Windows Phone with a reliable source citing it is a non-reliable source?
- The actual website itself is OK; the "discontent" part of the statement is not. User comments/forums, etc are not reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie, regarding your recent POV tag applied to MONU, it would be great if you could provide an explanation on the article's talk page. The article in question has been edited I presume by a good faith newby, and is important to clearly explain which parts are problematic and what is expected. Cheers, --Elekhh (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jamie,
I am hoping to restore the content that I wrote for MONU magazine. I am new to Wikipedia, and have read over the neutrality statement, which seems very reasonable. However, I do not feel that applies to me. I am not affiliated with MONU in any way--I am not an editor, nor am I on the editorial board, nor have I ever published in the magazine. It just happens to be a publication that I really like, and I didn't feel the brief entry on Wikipedia did it credit. Could you recommend particular changes that would strengthen it, as I'd very much like to restore what I have written (I spent a godawful amount of time on it!)
Thanks,
Joseph Heathcott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Heathcott (talk • contribs) 16:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The content had several problems, namely (1) incorrectly formatted citations and (2) non-neutral statements that were not supported by WP:Reliable sources. I already placed policy links on your talk page regarding the citation formatting and NPOV. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please give one or two examples (quotes) of what you found as being non-neutral? I think it would be really helpful, and would be much appreciated. --Elekhh (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The referencing was such a mess that I didn't try to match links with statements. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see I need to do more work to cite my references and not tp perform original research; thank you for the pointers. I am having difficulty including the references but will keep learning. I do notice that the first line is "Pit-Bulls are one of many breeds" is not accurate and has no reference to support it. I had decided to perform the edits based on the false information it currently contains. Is the current wiki being allowed to stand without reference because you personaly believe it to be accurate and require no reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwfredette (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you take the time to read the talk pages for Pit bull and American Pit Bull Terrier, you will see that there is a longstanding agreement as to why there are two separate articles. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have just blocked, you may want to see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sharma.ind. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Great minds think alike. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- :) I am not sure if Sharma.ind is the master. And I think upending the drawer might be useful. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohnoitsjamie,
I see you're quite a crusader against Wikipedia content that demonstrates a conflict of interest. In that case you may want to check the article on George Lilanga, a Tanzanian artist. This article refers to a Hamburg art gallery that promotes the sale of Lilanga's works. It already starts in the first sentence (Hamburg Mawingu Collection, HMC), first ref, and then at least two of the external links. Among the external links there are several links to other art galleries also selling Lilanga's work. HMC is also the one who initiated the article; user goes by the name of Makond. If you clean this up, please do it for the german version as well. Loranchet (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll look at it here, but I don't have admin rights on de Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone can add or delete anything at any of the Wiki's, isn't it? I regularly edit within several language Wiki's. Loranchet (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but my written German comprehension is extremely rusty. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, they're _over_ 3RR at this point, with that IP they used to edit as. :-) Reported at the EWN.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it. I hadn't counted, but knew they were close, if not over. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie
I made a minor edit to Forex fixing, as you know, because immediately thereon you deleted an external link that had been in the article for over a year already! This leads me to think that you are the exact person to whom I should posit my current dilemma, which is this:
I am working on a page in my user space Cneeds/Showcase website that describes a type of website that I believe is missing in Wikipedia. I am also of the opinion that the article will benefit from real-life examples of the four types of showcase website that I have so far classified (a picture is worth a thousand words). You will see from the article's talk page that I have already tried several ways of including these examples and now the article contains my latest rendition which is to make reference to the relevant example websites.
I would appreciate your view as to:
- Is the classification of "showcase website" notable?
- What is the best way to provide examples?
- Ultimately I will write an article on each site as I believe they are all notable in their own right (if not, I will find ones that are!). If I do that will the external links be more tolerable to WP or is there another (better) way to "display" the example websites?
Cneeds (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm on my way out the door, but I can get you started; first read general notability guidelines, which will help you determine if Showcase website is a concept that has received significant third-party, reliable-source coverage. I've never heard of it myself, but I'm not a marketer, and I'm sure there are some notable marketing terms/concepts that I haven't heard of. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie,
When you have time, I'd like you to take another look at the Tvind entry [1].
Another editor (Wawelength) has been contributing a great deal of material, some of which appears to be mere opinion without references.
In addition, there appears to be some incorrect reference formatting, such as the section titled "Tvindkraft World’s biggest windmill," in which all of the references are placed at the very beginning of the text.
See my latest comments on Wawelength's talk page for details. Thank you. Saskehavis (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie,
Please could you have another look at The Banker article deleted from Basel III.
When originally removed the comment by 78.41.128.14 on 30 July 2011 stated "The problem with The Banker article is that it is not for free. It asks readers to register onthe web-site or pay a subsribtion. This could be seen as an advertisement, rather than information. Unfortunatelly, because The Banker is respected."
As I mentioned in the post, this paywall has been changed to allow Wikipedia users access to the content with no commercial block. It is a neutral piece from a respected source and is highly relevant to visitors of this page.
I've previously declared an interest in The Banker but I think the content and accessibility of this article clearly show it is not spam or commercially driven.
I'd appreciate if you could get a second opinion or let me know the exact point of the COI so that I don't make a similar mistake in the future.
Thanks for your time - I appreciate the help
AJonWiki —Preceding undated comment added 16:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Sorry, but no, per WP:COI and WP:ADVERTISING. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to be a pain but it would be a great help to clarify which part of the COI is the main problem so I know not to continue falling foul of the regulations. In this case is it the actual article or the person posting that is the main issue? Assuming it is me posting it, within "citing yourself" it says it "is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies". I'm not the author but I think the article meets those qualifiers. If it is the "Self-promotion" section - it is linking through to a Financial Times Ltd. webiste, certainly not an obscure personal page, with a highly relevant article for the subject of the Wiki page. If it is just due to working for the organisation, I thought that the validity of the post was based on the merit of the content, which is the point of declaring an interest. I didn't see anything in the advertising link that obviously applied though I've probably just missed it among the long page. I'm really just trying to understand exactly what I can post as there is often the contradiction on the policy pages that if the content is good enough, is neutral and adds value to the page then this over-rules a potential COI. Thanks again and sorry for the long reply! AJonWiki —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- The WP:EL and WP:COI pages exist so that we don't have to explain the same thing over and over again. We don't allow single purpose accounts to use Wikiedia as a promotional vehicle, period. There's nothing else to say about it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers - that page was helpful. Unfortunately the long pages with hundreds of links are not always the easiest to follow when you are still relatively new. Anyway, thanks for your time. AJonWiki
