Please add new messages to the bottom of the page. If a conversation is started here, I'll respond here; if it starts on your talk page, I'll respond there.
Contacting me
I prefer to communicate via talk pages. Please only email me if there is a good reason not to conduct a conversation on a talk page. I do not respond to emails regarding link deletions and other issues that should be discussed on your userpage or the article talk page.
Why did you remove my external links?
If you've come here because you want to know why I removed some external links you've added, please read Wikipedia's policies on spam, Wikipedia external link guidelines and conflict-of-interest first. Because of Wikipedia's popularity, it has become a target for folks looking to promote their sites, which is against Wikipedia policies. If you read WP:SPAM and still feel that your link(s) does not violate those policies, let me know.
One common argument I hear is But so-and-so link is on that article, and it's commercial!WP:EL doesn't explicitly forbid In links to commercial sites; it depends on the notability of the link, its content, and if it's a reference or a notable pro/con argument on a controversial subject, etc. On the other hand, I think that many Wikipedians would agree that there are way too many commercial links at present time, so feel free to "prune away" if the link doesn't meet guidelines in WP:EL. Incidentally, if you've come here to complain that I've deleted links to your blog (especially a blog with advertising), don't bother. You'll have to find free advertising somewhere else. A good Google search will reveal plenty of places for that sort of thing.
Vandalism and insults left here will be recycled in the bit bucket. Remember: be nice!
PLEASE LEAVE NEW COMMENTS AT THE *BOTTOM* OF THIS PAGE.
Permissions
Hi Ohnoitsjamie, thank you for pointing this out. I had forgotten that I had declined a prior permissions request from Theworldgymnast1, although the name did seem familiar. Thanks again. Acalamari 11:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for keeping up with the volume of requests on the permissions page. Not sure what "vandalism wars" Theworldgymnast1 is talking about...I didn't see any in a cursory inspection of their diffs. OhNoitsJamieTalk 13:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Meetup in San Diego?
Hi Ohnoitsjamie, I am Sebastian Wallroth from Berlin, Germany, board member of Wikimedia Deutschland. I am visiting San Diego from February 3rd to February 8th, happily invited to a wedding. I would like to meet Wikipedians. Is there a chance for a Wiki Meetup in San Diego during the first week in February? --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sebastian, I'd be up for that. Where in San Diego will you be staying? OhNoitsJamieTalk 15:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Paul Allender may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Allender was involved with the formation of a new project named "White Empress." Mary Zimmer (formerly of [[Luna Mortis]]} is a vocalist with the new project. According to Zimmer: {{quotation|Paul and I actually have a
Hi Jamie. This guy remains unconvinced of his lack of notability. He actually re-created the article via C&P with the CSD tag still on it. INeverCry 03:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kanpur massacre
I am working on inserting references. Please give me some time. I am new and learning. However edits I made are with sound basis of historical knowledge and reading. Please stop undoing changes unless you really know this historical event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshal1981 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could use another opinion at Criticism_of_Islam#India. Can look at discussion, if you think that would be helpful. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chennai
Hi, thanks for keeping watch on Chennai article. You have recently removed the statement "Chennai is the cultural capital of India" (rightly so). Originally it was written as "cultural capital of South India" (with source). Seems somebody has removed during the source. I will try to find the source again. The discussion related to this can be found here. Happy editing :).--Challengethelimits (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, thanks for fixing it! OhNoitsJamieTalk 03:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steve Ballmer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (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) 09:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plato's Allegory of the Cave
Hi Jamie; the message you sent me for removing an edit to this page indicated that you thought my edit was a "test"? It was not intended to be a "test" edit -- I cited evidence from a TED talk to show a connection between the allegory of the cave, education, and game-based learning. Also, from my research on the standards for notability, I'm wondering why "non-noteable" was a reason for deleting the citation since notability guidelines do not apply to article content according to the official guidelines. I'd think a TED talk constitutes some merit for inclusion, no? Kballestrini (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having been on a TED talk does not automatically confer notability. We're not going to list everyone who's ever alluded to the Allegory of the Cave for obvious reasons. OhNoitsJamieTalk 15:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize it's not an allusion, but a core analysis of Plato's view on education and how it applies to current research in game-based learning, right? Did you watch the talk? Kballestrini (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what the talk is about. The individual is not notable, period. I'm not discussing it further. Make a blog about it if you think it's so important. OhNoitsJamieTalk 15:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removing deck
Hi Jamie - just wanted to see why the link to the deck on funnel optimization was removed. The deck was relevant to that section of the article (the article discusses how growth hacking involves each step of the customer funnel for a product, which is the whole purpose of the deck). The deck has been extremely well received by the community - it has over 26k views on slideshare, and Sean Ellis (who coined the term 'growth hacking' and is referenced in the article) called it "one of the best decks in growth that I've ever seen." The deck is a shortened version of a class I teach at Northwestern's MBA program. If I formatted it incorrectly I'd be happy to modify it. let me know your thoughts! --Intentionally (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When a user signs up for Wikipedia for the sole purpose of adding an external link with no content, it smells very spammy, hence the revert. Given your username and the link, you'll probably also want to read WP:COI. OhNoitsJamieTalk 03:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understood - I signed up with Wikipedia on 10/22/12 (can send the relevant email if that helps.) I get COI - this deck has been up for almost a year. Didn't think it warranted inclusion until Sean Ellis tweeted about it (as did growthhacker.tv who's also referenced here. If you don't think it warrants inclusion I understand, but I do think it's in the spirit of the topic and that line specifically, and the community itself was very receptive to it. --Intentionally (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not receptive to it at this time. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks for the replies. Appreciate the consideration. --Intentionally (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the edits from the time it was first semi-protected on January 7 to the time you fully protected it on January 11, I can't see why you saw the need to raise the protection level.
The protection will expire on Saturday, so there's no need to un-protect it. But if the vandals come back and if they are not auto-confirmed or abusing edit summaries, consider using just semi-protection. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I upped it to full because after several autoconfirmed meatpuppets got through (Hoppus had invited his Twitter followers to modify his Wiki article with various crap). OhNoitsJamieTalk 19:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I guess I'm not seeing anything. The only non-IP editor besides you between the time you applied the 3-day semi at 19:01 7 January and the time you re-impposed it as full protection at 10:08 11 January was Aqlpswkodejifrhugty, which was a good anti-vandal edit. Was this just a preventative measure to prevent vandalism by known auto-confirmed accounts that hadn't edited since 19:01 7 January? If so, then thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The same group of meatpuppets were targeting articles of all individual Blink-182 members as well as Hanson (band). These were the edits that prompted me to elevate to full to put an immediate stop to it. [1][2]OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now. Good call, even if the reasons weren't clear in the logs. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SMX mixer calculator
Hello. Could you please send me the text of my deleted article SMX mixer calculator? I would like to improve it and remove any part admins determine as promotional. I gave several points in the talk page to explain that the article provides scientific and engineering knowledge of both SMX mixer and the calculator. I would like to hear some feedback from admins. Or can I put the article in my user space and improve it with the help of admins? Thank you! --Chenyiaero (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional isn't the only issue. There's no evidence the product is notable; see WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. I think I did not do sufficient work to prove that SMX mixer (and the calculator) is notable. I will provide more independent evidence to prove that SMX mixer is an important type of static mixer, and the fluid dynamic problem is largely interested. Could you please send me the original text so that I can improve it? I just hope the door is not closed. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chenyiaero (talk • contribs) 00:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you soooo much for your kindness. Please accept this as a little gift :D ANDREW EUGENE Discuss 15:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maryland and Delaware
Hi, I know that these states are sometimes classified as Northeastern States. But which are classified as Southern States by United States Census Bureau and Northeastern United States category already within Mid-Atlantic category so I was deleted it. If my edit made a problem, I apologise for it. --Allytoon (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Wikipedia's categorization is constrained by US Censur bureau's categorization. It makes more sense to categorize states as belonging to a region if there is a reasonable number of sources which categorize it as part of that region, as is the case here. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Several deletions
Hey there, I notice you deleted several pages I'd created within a few minutes of each other. From my understanding, deletion is intended to be a process. Is it possible for me to see the discussion of those pages and why they were deleted? I can see why a few of them weren't considered encyclopedic (they were new), but a few of them could have curated and merged with existing articles as variations of existing necktie knots. Now that the content is gone, I don't even have the chance to archive it for future improvement, which I'm sure you understand is disappointing. :)
Thanks for your time in reading this. I look forward to your helpful response.
ire Irelocus (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not free webhosting. The articles you created about knots clearly fall under WP:CSD#A11. The article about yourself should've been speedied, but I sent it to AfD to be sure. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Could you please respond to the other elements of the question I posed? If I were to include the variations on the Half-Windsor, Full-windsor and Onassis knots, would that qualify as encyclopedic? I have some other knots which I was working on, existing knots with longer histories, and I'd like to have some measure of confidence they'll not be summarily deleted so quickly.
Also, can you help me with finding the old text for those deleted articles? Or am I just up a creek, as they say? :) Thanks!Irelocus (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... So is this the wrong forum to address my other questions? I apologize if I'm addressing these in the wrong place, but I'm obviously a new user and I'd love a little more helpful guidance. Since you're the person who did the deleting/recommending, I'd love it if you could be a little more helpful instead of blowing me off like this. If not, please direct me to a person who can be more helpful. Directing to a page that makes sense to you isn't necessarily helpful to me. I'm here to learn. Thanks! Irelocus (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pages like WP:NOR exist so new users can learn how Wikipedia works. If you read that policy, along with WP:RS, you should be able to understand why articles about necktie knots you made up do not belong in Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamieTalk 14:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I was trying to have a conversation, as I learn better through interaction than reading alone. I can see I'm barking up the wrong tree here. Again, sorry to bother you. Irelocus (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thank you for semi protection of Maharashtra I'm in process to take it to GA level. Once again thanks--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣ 14:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, keep up the good work. I've been trying to clean up Solapur myself, though it's a long way from GA. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Replace Bangalore with Bengaluru
Hi Jamie,
We need to talk about renaming of the Bangalore page to Bengaluru. Bengaluru is the official name of Bangalore. I edited this page to change the words in the page content from Bangalore to Bengaluru several times but it has been reverted. Hence I want to discuss about this and come to a conclusion regarding the title of the page. I am contesting that it should be named Bengaluru, just like other city pages have been renamed like Mumbai from Bombay, Kolkatta from Calcutta, Chennai from Madras.
The place to discuss it is on the talk page for Bangalore, where it's already been discussed. OhNoitsJamieTalk 15:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strozzi-Heckler page
Hi Jaimie - I'm the author of the Richard Strozzi-Heckler article and I'm confused by the afd tag you placed on it. 9 of the 10 references I created the article with fall into the category of 3rd party reliable sources as I understand it. Would you help me understand your reasoning? SympatheticResonance (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not as far as I can tell. If the prod is disputed the article will be sent to WP:AFD; you can make your notability arguments there. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that you are the one disputing it. All of sources except for number 8, which refers to his methodology itself, are published by 3rd party sources, almost all in print, and many from major publishers. You specifically cite a lack of reliable 3rd party sources. SympatheticResonance (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO requires non-trivial coverage from notable 3rd party sources. Refs to a bunch of books that aren't accessible online aren't helpful. It doesn't matter if I'm the only one who's disputed it as of yet. If I send it to AfD, it will be up to the community to judge if he is notable. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these books' entries on Strozzi-Heckler are available - free online via Google Books previews. The WSJ journal article is linked at it's reference, the only picture in the article is of him and is specifically about doing the work he is notable for with the US Marine Corp.SympatheticResonance (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you can make your arguments at AfD now that I've sent it there. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Good Humor
...to thank you for this reply which made me laugh out loud. MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Always happy to provide a laugh! OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is wrong to use blogspot as source. 2nd, it is a dead link. OccultZone (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't my intention to remove the "dead link," as I didn't see that in the diff; my intention was to remove inappropriate wikilinking of Google added by the previous user. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, sometimes there is too much dumb wikilinking by random users. Anyways, have fun. OccultZone (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, how I can get some signing style like yours? OccultZone (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Go to your "preferences" link (probably in the upper right corner), and add the markup in the "Signature" box; be sure to check the box titled "Treat as Wiki markup." The markup I use, as an example, is:
Excessively large signatures (in terms of the markup itself, not the result) are discouraged per Wikipedia:SIGNATURE#Length. That link always has additional info and examples for customizing your sig. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that you've recently deleted a link to http://www.golfboo.com/ in Wikipedia's Golf page. I've added this link because I think it's an excellent resource to all those golf lovers. I don't have any comercial relation with Golfboo, indeed, I only discovered it two months ago, and since then, I've been looking into its internal pages in order to find valuable info about golf courses around world. Moreover, as fas as I know, Golfboo is the first search engine especialized on golf, and it bases its search results on users reviews. Of course, you can do what you want, but I think this link can help golf lovers a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio redondo (talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The links I posted on the your talk page explain our policies. Please promote your website elsewhere. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! Thanks for your comments on Eva Haller... I've added a bit more to the discussion page and the article that might help it. Also - it has been a week since the discussion was extended... which is when I thought a decision would be made? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Many thanks, United191 (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was already relisted for one week (8 days since last relist) and there have been three more substantive votes since then (including yours)... when should I expect to hear the result or relist? Many thanks! United191 (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know; there's not a definitely answer to that. Most likely it will get closed within the week I'd imagine. I'm not going to close it because I participated in it. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you want to talk about wind energy?
Thanks. On talk of wind energy article or here on your page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.250.207 (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I already posted a comment on the talk page. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A recent block
drinkreader(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has shown over a long period of time that he is constitutionally unsuited to Wikipedia. He does not understand that his self-promotion is self-promotion, nor does he understand fundamental policies on verifiability and sourcing. I really think we need to ban him. Since he's been anonymous until now, I think we should use "drinkreader" as the identifying label (his real name is trivially inferred, and I know it from OTRS tickets, but BLP is very important). Guy (Help!) 10:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the next block should be indefinite; I didn't delve too deeply into his history, I just saw obvious block evasion. If you'd rather the block be extended to indefinite now, I'm OK with that. Regarding the other matter; you just want to change the heading and tags so that the "drinksreader" account is labeled as sockmaster? OhNoitsJamieTalk 14:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Need protection
Check Talk:Superpower, check out the recent edit history. Other admin is not online, but you are online. OccultZone (Talk) 16:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Also check Cullen (surname), it is as worse. Because the IP inserts unbalanced and non-reliable material on main page. About 3 other editors reverted him, but I can't do anything for another 10 hours. I had my 2 reverts. OccultZone (Talk) 16:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the warring IP at Talk:Superpower is the same IP who was warring there yesterday. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Similar case can be seen here on Sati (practice), since[3], editor focuses on a particular information and changes to apologetic version. After that, makes a new account for removing the similar information[4], and starts edit warring [5], [6], logs out and place back with ip[7], then again logs in with account[8], after that he makes a new account[9], for promoting apologetic version, while removing sourced content. After that, this page underwent 100s of edits, became 2 times larger, so this user got back with new WP:SPA this time, [10], he inserted whole mess and misuse of source back to its place[11], and then expands it from new WP:SPA[12]. After I discussed about it with other active editor who is editing this page for more than a month, we figured that it is misuse of source, because he won't present the whole conclusion, he doesn't add whole supposed argument either. But he inserted his whole information back, while removing the information he don't like[13], his explanation for removal is "Not for lead, ungrammatical", although he has no sources for his information. Here he is supporting the edits of the above SPA[14], while thrashing the accessible and multiple reliable sources provided by me and others.
He hasn't collaborated, only opposed what he don't like through edit warring, and making WP:SPA, if you see his conversation, it is clear that he cannot be 1 - 2 months old editor, but it is obvious that he create these accounts only for thrashing these pages. He has probably carried out same edits on other pages too, for example Women in Hinduism[15], you have edited this page before, you may have countered. And this account also seems to be sock of this user. He will probably edit war or make new accounts for inserting same information. Checking the contribution history of these accounts, they are limited with one page. Noting WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY, it seems suspicious to me. OccultZone (Talk) 05:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Ohnoitsjamie. You have new messages at Slazenger's talk page. Message added 16:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Thanks for spearheading this - I was unable to find an appropriate policy to classify as, since WP:ELNO doesn't really cover this situation. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 16:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lifelong resident... yet, deleted?
please justify your deletion of "E. Jack Kirby" from wikipedia's page on rancho santa fe, ca.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDSAlleghany (talk • contribs) 10:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I checked, being a "lifelong resident" is not one of our WP:BIO notability criteria. I suppose we should list all life-long residents in every community article? Good thing hard drive storage is cheap. OhNoitsJamieTalk 15:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock Garr1984
You don't know me, but I am Garr1984's mother. He understands what he did wrong, vandalizing pages with death hoaxes. I have read your requirements for successful unblock requests, and they stipulate the person should understand what they did wrong, and why it was wrong, and resolve not to do it again. He has done all these things and yet you administrators won't hold to your end of the requirement in his case. This sure sounds like a punitive block to me, which, as I understand it, Punitive blocks are forbidden according to the rules.68.118.214.20 (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining Wikipedia's rules to me. OhNoitsJamieTalk 16:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The link you posted was an advertisement. See [WP:ADVERT]] and WP:EL. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert my edit?
Hello, why did you revert my edit on the Rechargeable battery article? You didn't make a note of why. Thanks--Wyn.junior (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to the Wikipedia community and guessing I missed something when I updated the Lake Howell High School page. Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, but will you please let me know what I overlooked and how I can correct it? Thank you for your help.
I don't want all of that on my talk page. If you are so convinced that this individual is notable, create an article about them first. Be advised that if WP:BIO notability criteria is not clear (i.e. multiple third-party reliable sources with 'non-trivial' coverage i.e., passing mention). If other editors including myself don't feel that notability is established, the article may then be sent to WP:AFD. OhNoitsJamieTalk 13:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the newbie mistakes. Really appreciate your advice and thanks for your patience! Apshai32 (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it takes time to learn the ropes. If you decide to create the article, WP:BIO has a subsection for entertainers. Do keep in mind that not everyone who is involved with the production of a notable television show or movie is automatically notable themselves. There are many folks who would be considered to be well-accomplished in their field, but still may not meet our WP:BIO notability criteria. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk 15:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! I'll give it my best shot! Thanks again for all your help. Apshai32 (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You detected my links as spam though I didn't really mean to SPAM with them
I'm just wondering what link seemed to be SPAM. Links to Quandl remains in External links parts, though links to Knoema were removed. Though we provide users with free statistical information, open and public data which could be useful to your users.
I'm sorry if I violated any rules but seems like my links were detected as SPAM by mistake. Hopefully we can discuss it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Olga sdn (talk • contribs)
As has already been stated in the warnings on your talk page, we don't permit mass canvassing of any site, regardless of perceived merit. There's nothing further to discuss. OhNoitsJamieTalk 13:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the answer. Could I add just a couple of links to the most useful content then? Not the whole bunch of them. Or my account will be blocked then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olga sdn (talk • contribs) 14:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You posted a warning at User_talk:Dotarray. Every single edit this account has ever done over the years is to spam links to gamepron and now playerattack. Since they have no purpose other than spamming, and their history over the years shows they aren't going to change despite repeated warnings from people, why not just block them? DreamFocus 10:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Out of habit I try to give at least one warning before blocking (unless an SPA is on a serious vandalism spree). At this point, the user will either disappear, or respam (in which case I'll block on site). I'll also be watching for a resurgence of both links, and am prepared to blacklist as well. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk 14:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really. That unblock request needs to be put out of its misery. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess that's that then. I fully expect another sock to appear in the next couple of days though once the unblock request is officially denied. Indrian (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and history will repeat itself. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I readded Lil B to the list on Outsider music because I feel he fits the description provided by the article (niche market, cult following, etc). Feel free to revert if you want to, just giving you a heads up. felt_friend 18:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How was a Lucerne, or even a Park Avenue not a replacement for the Roadmaster?
How is an eBay blurb that mentions that they both had V8s (and draws no other connections between them) an appropriate source to indicate that it was? The burden of proof is on you, not me. OhNoitsJamieTalk 02:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting Back
You keep reverting the edits back. Dcelano, March 6, 2014, 03:49, (UTC)
Because you keep violating your topic ban. OhNoitsJamieTalk 13:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I won't edit on Wikipedia anymore because of topic bans. One more thing, how do I not violate my topic ban? Dcelano, March 6, 2014, 22:44, (UTC)
Dcelano topic-banned from The Wiggles, widely construed. The topic ban can be appealed if Dcelano can show that he has understood the issues and is willing (and able) to comply with Wikipedia's policies, especially on verifiability and reliable sources. Huon (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I hope that answers your question. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DNPric.es as the source of top domain name sales are not spam edits
You have reverted my updates on .mobi and List of most expensive domain names making them outdated as the provided data no longer represents the reality. What was the reasoning behind it? Also, you did not respond to the discussion on my Talk page, but reverted the changes again fueling the revert war. Please first read the Talk page. Should you additional arguments not addressed on the Talk page yet, please present those. To make it fair, please revert the unnecessary reverts on the articles mentioned above. To keep the subject consistent, please continue discussion on my Talk page where you have initiated it. WikipedystTalk to Wikipedyst 03:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
You said that 'you are edit warring against three editors; please stop adding spammy aggregation links'. Please check my Talk page. User Ronz who was the only one to engage in the discussion is no longer contesting it. Please join the discussion if you care, or revert the last change as the ground provided is no longer valid. Thank you. WikipedystTalk to Wikipedyst 04:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I'm definitely contesting them. I'm just wondering if they might be considered reliable, and if so, if they might also be appropriate in some as yet unidentified circumstances. --Ronz (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ronz, please be consistent. On what grounds are you still contesting them? Your all other stances were contrargumented already. WikipedystTalk to Wikipedyst 04:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
You will be blocked if you continue to add links against community consensus. As you've already been told, the links are spammy; that is they are just plain old data aggragators with some ads attached to them. If you'd like to continue editing I suggest you stick with sources that clearly meat WP:RS guidelines, and that you avoid the appearance of a single purpose account. OhNoitsJamieTalk 14:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think DNPric.es is 'plain old data aggragator'. Please provide some example. As I understood, the database is yearly old and is propitiatory. Try to find something of this order and with this statistical details to prove me wrong. Using your logic I can now derive that BBC, Financial Times, even Wikipedia are all plain old data aggragators. Are they? Thank you for coming back on this subject. DNPric.es is all but spam. Ask any domain name specialist and they will tell you about the data value. To summarise, currently we have few outdated pages on Wiki. I tried to update them and provided the links to the ultimate sources in the industry, you reverted the changes back. So do you really prefer to have outdated pages and not allow other people to update them? Looking forward to hear about your reasoning. Thank you. WikipedystTalk to Wikipedyst 04:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Wikipedia is not a compendium of trivia, i.e. there is no compelling reason to maintain records of DNS sales. We can easily find reliable sources for remarkable such sales (e.g. tv.com, sex.com). You're obviously not listening to what Ronz, myself, and others have tried to explain to you, and as such I'm not discussing it further. Future attempts to add links to spammy sites will result in a block. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am surely listening. Please see the discussion on my Talk page. If you do not mind, I shall update the outdated lists without referring to DNPric.es and other external links, just to confirm I am not a spammer. But please do not delete it this time. It took me a while to gather the delta information. I want to make sure that data on Wikipedia is up-to-date. As to the top sales, why would they differ from other stats? E.g., on population, elections, contests, weather, climate ... those numbers are plenty on Wikipedia. I don't see any fundamental difference between those and other industry related and core findings. WikipedystTalk to Wikipedyst 11:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Getting back to you
Hi Jamie
Thank you for helping me comply with guidelines. I made a mistake and linked to the site. It was not promotional by any means. The massage page does lack language around reciprocity, renewal and other fine details. What if I were to re add these notes without the link to the site? I think this is acceptable. I am in the massage field as a practitioner and I feel this level detail will only help solidify the article/page some more. Please let me know your thoughts before I do this. Thank you (Ssajnani001)
Though Dawn is a reasonable source, the focus on the article is on his arrest, not on his work as a writer or author. The previous nominator has a week to find better sources (I did a few searches under both spellings and just found a bunch of Twitter/LinkedIn/Youtube results). OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meat/socks
Hi, I'm off to bed but have just noticed you close a RM discussion at Iqbal Azeem and then comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phaphra. It may be pure coincidence but it looks as if you may be checking through some contribution history (legitimately, of course, as several other people have done in this instance). Any chance you could take a look at recent comments on Talk:Noor Pur Baghan? - Sitush (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the warnings
Sorry; I'm testing out a new tool and unfortunately it's being quite laggy at the moment and reverting late. Cloudchased (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; looks like Vada has a few kinks to work out. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk 15:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another Bides Time sock
Since you seem to be handling the puppetry of Bides Time, let me point out another account that would appear to qualify. User:ANIMOCITY is an editor whose sole edits have been a reduction of, and AFDing of, the article about me. I did not link this to Bides Time (I do get targeted a lot, as a deletion-friendly editor with a Wikipedia page) until I saw that his remarks were adjusted by an IP editor whose sole prior contributes were to the Sharon Bohle AFD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
