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
Anyhoo, just dropping you a note to let you know I've taken him to ANI.
- If only I had a quarter for every goof I made here...no worries, and cheers! OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:53, 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]
- Didn't have much time to edit yesterday (nor will I today or tomorrow); there is always the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard if you'd like more uninvolved parties looking at it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if you're interested, but Ecoshrimp, who I suspect is behind the sockpuppets/meatpuppets I suspect, send me a message which I think I'm supposed to interpret as a threat of legal action, similar to what Aennie and Encycedit did and were warned about. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philebritite&redirect=no In any case, the flurry of edits seems to have subsided somewhat.Philebritite (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Carlin Romano edits by Philebritite
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 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. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:06, 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. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:03, 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]
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]
- Did not notice that vandalism. I appended a "last warning" to Threegeny's page, as so far it's a vandalism-only account. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ink Cartridge
Hi there. I am an expert in the ink cartridge field and while I know there was the potential for COI, I updated information on the page which accurately reflects the topic in a neutral fashion that is not promotional and contained no spam. Why did you delete it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.112.26.83 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.26.83 (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not an advertising forum, period. I'm tired of SPA island ink cartridge spammers, and will start blocking them on sight. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks much! OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:10, 2 July 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]
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Morse High School (San Diego, California)#IAR Petition. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Arthur C. Clarke". Thank you. Note I'm just informing you. --NeilN talk to me 16:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...Talk:List of people claimed to be Jesus? Someone (who, if I wasn't going to WP:AGF, I would assume is a troll) wants us to get consensus again before I leave a note asking people not to engage in that bit of smartassery that always gets reverted. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:36, 10 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]
- See the blurb at the top of this page. Continue to spam your site and you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:24, 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)
- Please see WP:COI, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:ADVERT. I'm not discussing it further. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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/complex 15:49, 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. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:55, 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/complex 16:17, 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, OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, thanks. Jimbo should work on a way to get wikipedia to automatically reach out of the screen and punch spammers in the face. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- *mashes "punch" button furiously* OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
James,
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.
I sincerely hope that your next edit is done after careful consideration of each of the individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talk • contribs) 18:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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
- OK. OhNoitsJamie Talk 12:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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]
- There's nothing to reconsider. We don't allow single purpose account link canvassing. If you continue to add them, you will be blocked, period. OhNoitsJamie Talk 12:24, 24 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]
- Activist redirects to Activism; I don't see that quote anywhere in that article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:10, 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]
- OK. Sorry for the collateral damage, that quote makes a lot more sense in Wikispace now that I think about it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:03, 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. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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]
- As stated in my edit summary, you need a reliable source to change a band/musician genre. I don't have person opinions regarding Skrillex, but his genre is widely described as dubstep in numerous reliable sources. this one, for example. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:46, 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 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) See also this discussion about genre warring on Wikipedia. tedder (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that is an excellent summation of massive source of wasted energy on Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm bordering on being a rogue admin with the block of this ip. Would love to have your verification on it. tedder (talk) 17:48, 2 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. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I even put a personal note on there, but that means it easily falls under Valfontis' Law. tedder (talk) 17:52, 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, OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I would like to reinstate the links. However, I don't wish to be inflammatory, so would only like to do so with approval and discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scampicat (talk • contribs) 16:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, per WP:COI and WP:EL. If you see other links that violate those policies, feel free to delete them as well. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Thanks for your time. Scampicat (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scampicat (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:EL and WP:COI exist for a reason; so editors don't have to keep explaining this over and over. As such, I'm not discussing it further. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish to be confrontational. I'm simply trying to add some genuine content to Wikipedia. I am of the genuine opinion that the content I have added does not violate these policies.
I have supplied genuine, informative content to a topic and provided a non-promotional external source to the article from where I found that information.
You disagree and have post two links to policy documents. These DO NOT apply to this case.
What are the options here?
I would a appreciate a little more discussion - as I spent time and effort creating content which I believe enhances the existing text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scampicat (talk • contribs) 17:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
