Please add new messages to the bottom of the page. If a conversation is started here, I'll respond here; if it starts on your talk page, I'll respond there.
Contacting me
I prefer to communicate via talk pages. Please only email me if there is a good reason not to conduct a conversation on a talk page. I do not respond to emails regarding link deletions and other issues that should be discussed on your userpage or the article talk page.
Why did you remove my external links?
If you've come here because you want to know why I removed some external links you've added, please read Wikipedia's policies on spam, Wikipedia external link guidelines and conflict-of-interest first. Because of Wikipedia's popularity, it has become a target for folks looking to promote their sites, which is against Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform.
In the Rupert's Land page you have sited that Rupert's Land as a part of British North America, but in later paragraphs under the heading 'Hudson's Bay Company's surrender of its charter to the Crown' you have that the HBC didn't actually sell Rupert's Land,but instead surrendered its charter, so Rupert's Land was not a British Territory and not part of British North America, instead only being a part of North America in general. The HBC charter reads as to mean that the British Crown would protect the interests of HBC so long as it protected Britains greater interest. The charter is a little hard to read (wordy/verbose), but is clear.
Now regarding the disputed soveriegnty of 'First Nations'/'aboriginal groups' in the 'territory' the charter also notes the soveriegnty of the 'Natives and People Inhabiting' in the use of words, also employing the word Nacion (Nation) later in the same sentence. I am willing to quote and discuss in detail the reasons for my insights
Rictor-8 (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Rictor-8[reply]
Changes to '420 (cannabis culture)'
I left a note which references simple mathematics, other pages within wikipedia, and personal experience (in regards to 3 $5 joints per gram). Why was that removed? Do I need to site myself?
Rictor-8 (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Rictor-8[reply]
Edit, nevermind, there was an edit conflict as we were both typing at the same time. I see what you mean, and wanted to say nevermind, it is too biased. THank you for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeropeRiddle (talk • contribs) 04:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It's certainly plausible that there was some sort of altercation and injuries, but we can wait until more information is released (i.e., official police report, etc.). Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk04:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just wondering why you reverted my addition of a wikilink to 2011 London Riots with no explanation? I thought it would add context to a quote which may lead people to question which riots the journalist was referring to. Cheers --BZTMPS ★ · (talk?contribs?)15:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was removing text that was not MEDRS compliant but he restored the sources that were poor evidence against MEDRS.
For example, In 1997, the American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs stated that, "There is little evidence to confirm the safety or efficacy of most alternative therapies. Much of the information currently known about these therapies makes it clear that many have not been shown to be efficacious. Well- designed, stringently controlled research should be done to evaluate the efficacy of alternative therapies." So what was the motivation to restore this? How is using a source that does not mention acupuncture improve the article? Read the edit summary. He thought one of the sources was dated but he still restored it. See Talk:Acupuncture#No_specific_explanation_was_given.
He added two primary sources. He then added even more primary sources or poor sources. He did not show how the sources are reliable in accordance with WP:SECONDARY. He did not address the issue about the primary sources or how the sources meet secondary and he ignored one of the sources is about ear acupuncture.[14][15]
I have to get an admin to review the evidence first and to get permission to file a ANI or EA report according to an admin. I request permission to file a report at ANI or AE or you can decide what to do in this situation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Not sure if I'm missing something obvious, but this is for a proposed ANI posting, not an SPI, correct? From my first pass at looking at this, I'm not sure if this merits an ANI report just yet. I agree with your points, but for now, it looks like you and Doc James are handling it pretty well (i.e., pushing back against the user's questionable edits, dodgy sourcing, etc). OhNoitsJamieTalk06:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is for a post at WP:ANI or I could file a report at WP:AE. Or you can decide if anything should be done: According to the discretionary sanctions he is aware of [16][17] any admin may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. ArbCom has placed sanctions on alternative medicine articles which includes acupuncture. QuackGuru (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A systematic review of systematic reviews found real acupuncture was no better than sham acupuncture and concluded that their is little evidence that acupuncture is an effective treatment for reducing pain. Sourced text.
A systematic review of systematic reviews of acupuncture for pain concluded that there is little evidence that acupuncture is an effective treatment, i.e. that real acupuncture may be no better than sham acupuncture. Misleading and ambiguous
The source says "In conclusion, numerous systematic reviews have generated little truly convincing evidence that acupuncture is effective in reducing pain." The source also says "real acupuncture was no better than sham."[18] The source does not say "may be". He obviously added original research.
He added largely duplication using primary/poor sources. Rather than use poor sources I replaced it with independent sources and moved the text under the US section. The section for the US under International reception already stated "Acupuncture is used at many places in the US, including Harvard, Stanford, and Yale." Independent sources were being used but he is insisting on using a bunch primary sources even after better sources were found. There is no need for duplication or a separate section. The text from the each country can go into each specific section for each country in the International reception. QuackGuru (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Programmatic marketing
Check out "Programmatic Marketing" - that's just not true about who coined it etal. Here's a link to the phrase being used in 2012 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5kmqISceAE). Thanks. Sorry I'm not a better user of Wikipedia talk pages. Stuck this in Middle 8
You seem to have mistaken me for someone who is interested in marketing. If you look at my contributions to that page, you'll see that I simply reverted spam. I have no opinion regarding who coined the term. OhNoitsJamieTalk02:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GGranddad Block
Could I ask you to please lower the block on User:GGranddad from indefinite to 48 hours? There is an active Checkuser request ([[19]]) and it may be useful to wait for the results of that to come back before implementing a permanent ban. DocumentError (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this was actually a message for Ohnoitsjamie. I'm an uninvolved observer and I'd like to keep this request limited to those who are; thanks for your understanding and cooperation. DocumentError (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I only mention it as I'm concerned this block may get lost in the rubble if the SPI later exonerates GGranddad. A 48-hour block would allow time for the SPI to complete, at which time one of the SPI admins will likely issue an indefinite block (if GGranddad is shown to also be the other guy). DocumentError (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Beatles
Hi,
you took out a ref to a scholarly article I had added to the page - this is a good reference, from a peer-reviewed paper, I don't understand why you took it out, without any justification.
Please advise,
Best Zamuse (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re : Please do not add inappropriate external links [...]
Re : Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promo.
Oh sure i respect wikipedia's policy and all of users contribution to make it best .
i have placed this link to find peoples top 1 million websites i dont think it may be spam to place one link to get one million websites list. do you think so ?
I have a question for you, even though I understand that you're busy with things. What's an archive on this website? I see the same word a bunch of times, and I am completely lost on what it is. Thanks. Skylar3214 6:33, 6 September 2014
To avoid discussion pages (either article talk or user talk) from becoming too long, pages can be automatically or manually archived; i.e., older stuff is moved to an archive page so that the page only has the most recent content. If you click the "Show Archives" link in the green box above, you'll find links to all of my archived talk. For personal talk pages, archiving is entirely optional; users are free to delete content, unless it pertains to an active block. OhNoitsJamieTalk01:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK. I wanted to make sure what it means. Thanks. Skylar3214 6:44, 6 September 2014
Block evasion
Last week you blocked 190.162.88.128 contribs for block evasion. He's the "best known for" IP with the LTA page here. He's avoiding his block again as 190.181.164.175 contribs. No doubt it's him, appearing out of nowhere with the bitchy edit summaries and the "best of" fixation [20], [21] etc. I can take this somewhere else if you want, but I'm losing track of where this guy is being dealt with. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's back [22], although he is steering clear (so far) of the "best known for" thing. You can tell by the obnoxious edit summaries and the Chilean IP. I don't know how many blocks he's evading at the moment but I thought you might like to be aware of his work. I see the previous IP is actually still blocked. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Was there a specific reason to revert user:Factsearch's edits with edit of yours? Your present version has a more promotional tone due to sentences such as "For further information, please visit the TUF website at http://www.thaiuniongroup.com/" which Factsearch's version avoided. I've reverted your revert in the meantime. Please provide a valid reason for keeping your preferred version. - Takeaway (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I just did and changed the ref to one from Reuters. Unfortunately, your revert had actually made the article more self-promotional than the spam that was hidden in the ref by Factsearch. :) - Takeaway (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just tried to fix it myself, apologies if I stepped on your toes. Factsearch did occasionally make useful, non-spam edits, but the scale of the spam was too large to check each one. It's going to take awhile to clean up the mess. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I thought Reuters would be a bit more neutral so I changed it to that, and also removed more promotional crud more the article. Now I've seen what Factsearch is doing, and how widespread it is, I can imagine that you didn't review every edit of his before reverting them. Cheers! - Takeaway (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Factsearch: spammed sites
Hello. I don't know if you've seen this page: http://www.themainstreammedia.com/, but there's a list of sites there, all of them owned by the company that Factsearch has been spamming for. I found the link to that list at the bottom of a page on liberianews.net that Factsearch was spamming a couple of days ago. Thomas.W talk19:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been keeping an eye on Factsearch for a couple of days, and was about to report them to WP:ANI, when I noticed that you had started to revert the links. Thomas.W talk20:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is disappointing to find this topic being freely discussed and conclusions being drawn without any reference to me. Nonetheless I appreciate people are acting in good faith so I hope you will spare a couple of minutes to read my response which I have just left on my talk page, as follows:
It is extremely disheartening to regard significant work as a spam reference program, particularly without any dialogue. I can however understand how this would be construed.
My company does generate significant unique content for its network. The fact that part of it could be put to use in Wikipedia to me was making more use of that content. Only stories that would contribute to Wikipedia were added.
My interest in Wikipedia was not the motivation to add references, that came as a consequence, where I could see useful content my company was creating being put to further use. Engaging in a ‘spam reference’ program would be somewhat of a useless exercise in any event as virtually no traffic would be generated by it, and there is no value in the links because of the no-follow policy. Another consideration in a tiny way was to provide references with no registration required. One of my pet hates with Wikipedia is to go to a reference and find it is actually an invitation to subscribe to a newspaper, and without it I cannot access the article. Wikipedia is saturated with Wall Street Journal references. This may be ok for WSJ subscribers who work on Wikipedia, but for the 99% of the rest of us it is not. Many news sites now have this, almost all in Australia, and the UK, although there are some that are still freely available. Allowing references that require subscriptions being taken out is using Wikipedia as a promotions tool, in my view.
Not only references from my company were added although they were in the main for the reasons stated. There were other references added and significant work done to tidy up articles, and to add to them without references being added. I would stand by every edit done, as a genuine contribution to Wikipedia. My interest has developed over time mainly because I can see how outdated much of the encyclopedia is with a significant number of articles that have had no changes in years. My recent foray into expanding one contribution to so many sites was that it extended to many such articles, very small countries and articles that receive little to no attention. I can understand however now as to how that was perceived.
Anyway I at least wanted to explain why I did what I did. The work I have added has now been removed so there is nothing to be done there. And I will not use the account again, or any other account. If this account can be closed then please proceed to do that.
Regardless of your explanation, you clearly engaged in a long campaign in which nearly 100% of the references that were added were, as I suspected and you freely admit, conflict of interest additions. I had no problems finding replacement references for your Big News edits; in fact, my guess is that most (if not all) of Big News articles originate with Reuters or a similar service (hence the lack of reporter names attached to articles). In the meantime, I'll be filing a more comprehensive report for tracking purposes. OhNoitsJamieTalk01:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See the above discussions. The reference was added as part of a long-term reference spamming campaign for aggregator news sites, and can easily be replaced with a better source. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I gazed into my tablet at Special: New pages, (Not a mirror as you suggested, here, at User talk:JhonASF). Arrgh! Noooooo... There he was, again, in the clever disguise of Maxiz7 (talk·contribs) creating, again, Asif Leghari. Just thought you'd like to know. At least I caught 'it' almost as soon as it was created. Socked and blocked! --220ofBorg07:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, it's Jamie! :-) Hi. I find it a little strange to write 'Humans preparing a meal in...' at a picture. Change the picture to that of a couple of famous French chefs and how does it sound? I think -although we are all humans- nobody would like to be called 'humans' when they can be referred to with their nationality, ethnicity or whatsoever. No? Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. This guy has gotten more notable, so I wrote him an article. I would like to redirect CopperCab (the YouTube screen name that initially made him famous) to his page but, alas, CopperCab is creation protected. Would you be able to help me out? Thanks. Brycehughes (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ohnoitsjamie. The discussed text describes the social function of the singing of vocal harmonies of a complexer level, something I value additional information, rounding up the article. Group does not mean Tetseo Sisters here. --Gerald Fritz (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your block review decline at User talk:Amanda Smalls because this is a CU block, and only CU's may review a CU block. Admin don't have access to the CU data, so we can't accept the unblock, nor decline it. Dennis - 2¢16:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You previously blocked this user a couple days ago. The IP user is now trolling, leaving personal attacks, and edit-warring on his talkpage now, in addition to block evasion. I have also reported this to ANI, but I suggest that his talk page access be removed. Epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something appears to have messed up in your recent move of the article, with the article content having disappered. Also note that there appears to be consensus on the talk page not to move the article to the title Bengaluru, so you may need to move the article, and talk-pages back to the stable title (ie Bangalore). Abecedare (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jamie, since you seem to have signed off for the day, I have requested other admins to restore the Bangalore article and move the pages back. See discussion here. Abecedare (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it looks like the Bangalore/Bengaluru move was inadvertently done twice, with the result that both article titles were a redirect, and the actual article on the city was deleted. I reverted one of these to ensure we still had an immediately readable article on the subject. Wanted to make clear this is not a reflection on your decision to move the article - just a cleanup of what appeared to be an accidental extra click. Happy to discuss if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for making a mess of that. I know people had been edit warring about names of Indian cities, and thought that given the official status conferred on November 1st that it would be appropriate to move. I accept that WP:COMMONNAME trumps "official" names. Thanks for cleaning that up. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RFC on recent renaming of 11 Indian cities... use old or new names?
Hi Ohnoitsjamie: I believe we have an agreement at User talk:190.163.4.132 that justifies trying an unblock in exchange for the IP's promising to avoid further personal attacks and instead to call for other eyes when s/he considers a revert unjust. Inasmuch as the discussion at AN on whether the editor should be considered banned was inconclusive, I'm uncertain how to proceed: tell the editor to try an unblock request; reopen the recently archived AN/I thread that the IP opened and that led to your 6-month block, but which trailed off after the noticeboard had been semi-protected (without my realizing it); Drmies suggests first asking you whether you are willing to unblock. The discussion is there on the IP's talk page, and Epicgenius and SummerPhD have participated to some extent there too, although Epicgenius has since said he will honor the IP's request that he not post there, so you may want to sound him out elsewhere about his thoughts at this point. I won't take up more of your reading time here, but feel free to ask me to explain myself more if you wish. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fully endorse what Yngvadottir says. To which extent the Pottery Barn rule applies remains to be seen: Yngvadottir and I (DGG, I believe, is in agreement) are dependent on the goodwill of all parties involved. Thanks Jamie, Drmies (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you reverted my edit which added, after the English pronunciation, the Latin one. Now, the name Philae IS A LATIN NAME (the Latin counterpart of the Greek Φιλαί, as the Ph reveals), and the Latin pronunciation IS A VALID PRONUNCIATION, for two reasons: because Philae is a Latin name AND because it is the pronunciation the majority of people at the European Space Agency use. Please google Philae fee-lay.
Take it to the article's talk page, not here. There's no good reason to clutter up the lede with alternate pronunciations, regardless of the origin. The article already has the IPA for the common pronunciation. OhNoitsJamieTalk23:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to the warning message issued to BengapqhBengapqh
Bengapqh I am well aware of the "no follow" robot meta tag, and it was never my intentions to advertise, as stated by you. I am yet to understand, how an external link is judged to be "inappropriate" by wikipedia standards. I would be delighted to state that I have as well created some non existing pages "Begunia group of Temples" a national heritage site yet to be listed on Wikipedia.
I further state that I would completely restrain myself from any further participation to Wikipedia of any type as my work here is measured in terms of spam. I would revert all the changes I have made if asked to.
Bengapqh (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC) My sincerest apologies. I was unaware and misguided into external linking errands. Are citations equally measured as spam?? In case it does, I would be removing all of them. However, for the page Begunia group of temples, this is the only notable reference I have collected my data from.[reply]
Hey, before the user screams at you, he is blocked for a month, not a week ([24]). The block evasion was repeated multiple times, so I upped the block again. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Link removal
Hi. You removed my link. I understand that despite being updated regularly my blog does not make the cut but why did u tag me as a spammer? A removal is acceptable but calling me a spammer on my talk page is not. Abciswhatiknow (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)absiswhatiknow[reply]
Before going for ANI, I thought of asking you, if you can handle this issue.
For a few hours, I have tried to discuss with User:Tropical sunset about his changes. He continues to make personal attacks and never provides any citations for the information that he continues insert in an article. I have removed one of his personal attack,[25] and warned too.[26] But he hasn't stopped.[27]-[28]Bladesmulti (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From my research, it appears that Nepali, along with West Bengal two official languages, is an additional official language for a few districts. I'm not an expert on the geography of the area, but it appears that Ghum falls within those districts. If the edit warring/attacks continue, I'll take additional actions. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and you are correct that those three are official languages, I had just added citation to that information on Nepali language. His removal of Bengali language from infobox was the main concern, I would have accepted it too if he could present a citation regarding the claim that "Bengali is spoken by none". Bladesmulti (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Avalon
You removed a talk page edit here. Not complaining Jamie but this won't be the first time I have taken an edit at face value, only to see it removed later as "block evasion". For all I knew this might have been someone else who agreed with the previous battlers but was acting independently. Is there an infallible way to spot "block evasion" or is it just educated guesswork?: Noyster (talk), 10:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The user never gloated on my talk page. They have never edited my talk page. They have gloated on Swpb's talk page. That was why I was confused. -- GBfan16:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the users talk page history, you will find that the user is constantly changing what is written in front of other users signature and therefore making the conversation confusing. The user justifies this editing by stating that he can edit anything on his own page. - w.carter-Talk16:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that. All the altering occurred before that block. I was just helping Yajeepms out with some fixes in articles and pictures, as I do for many new users, when all this started and I got caught up in it. I'll leave it to the admins now. Best, w.carter-Talk18:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The curious case of 203.0.215.4
I saw you left a stuff warning at User talk:203.0.215.4 back in April. Their editing history is intriguing - they left fake block notices, checkuser blocks yet, on the pages of 16 IPs and one registered user. (I've now gone through removing them all and welcomed the registered user.) The common element was that all had reverted at Herman Hu - mostly reverting Flagplus. But when I investigated, I found Flagplus' edits more positive than not: several instances of this, and the source for the birth date appears to pan out, and he started what is now the second paragraph on the lawsuit, which is sourced and also supports Hu still holding that position in 2014. So far as I can tell using Google translate. (Although Flagplus is one of the more extreme SPAs I have ever seen, and started the article on Hu with emphasis on that scandal, so I wouldn't want to portray them as saintly.) In any event all the edit warring and gross misuse of templates is stale. But if you hadn't warned back in April I would have done so now. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maheshwari Community edit
Dude, four citations are already placed in that article! As I am unable to find a research paper / newspaper on sub-castes within main caste (no one writes about such bull**it. No one has time for the same!), I started off with writing an article which I am not sure can be considered as another citation?! But there were citations from the only sources that were available on internet.
14.139.98.11 (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ohnoitsjamie! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer(Talk)11:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 28th AVN Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jennifer White. 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.
Hi. 32 linked this discussion to me, but I still think I need to weigh in here. I have not looked in detail at all the edits, but I was wondering what Asher Heimermann was doing too in regard to one thing. A consensus was reached on one article (over a year ago and I cannot for the life of me remember which one) regarding the Sanborn maps. This is essentially a content issue and the registered editor's behavior is over the top. He has filed at ANI also. Perhaps as a respected long time editor, you could speak with him? John from Idegon (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a link directory. Typically, official city cites and chamber of commerce links are fine, but anything beyond that is game for removal unless there is a good argument for inclusion otherwise. I'm not sure which Sanborn map consensus you are referring too; links would be helpful. OhNoitsJamieTalk03:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that you've watchlisted this article, but just in case, there was an objection on the talk page so I've removed the prod notice. (I don't object to deletion myself.) —Cryptic02:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Billy Hathorn
Hi. Yup, that's probably Billy. He's never gone away. After about two years, I gave up tagging all the IPs he uses to edit and filing SPIs because he just returns and plows ahead. When/if I encounter his edits, I just clean up after him if possible. His handiwork is easy to spot because he sticks to obscure biographies on politicians (usually Southern) and actors and old, obscure television shows. His edits are also easy to spot - copyright vios galore (mostly copied verbatim from genealogy sites with all the needless information included), a penchant for adding "USA" and county names to infoboxes, and adding an insane amount of vaguely related portals. Pinkadelica(Talk)00:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Led lamp article
If the efficiency mentioned is on the bulb, variable or fluctuates then you would remove the information? May I ask why? Why are do that, man?? -59.95.2.127 (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably take a look at my comments on NkZagreus' talk page, which he's since deleted. He's clearly the author of the blog posts he's linking to. If you'd like the evidence please email me (and let me know) so there's no outing here. I'm wondering if we should advise him to contact you by email too, in case he wants to exercise a right to vanish. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My current position is that NkZagreus is welcome to vanish and to delete anything from his talk page. Any further attempts to add the links (or if other accounts add similar links) will result in one or more blocks that I will be happy to issue. Having several experienced editors in agreement on an issue like this should result in a clear-cut disposition. Thanks, OhNoitsJamieTalk04:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Autostereogram/Art
Hi, sorry about this inconvenient. I thought that my contribution could improve the item "Autostereogram", since it was intended to underline the links between these software-made images and the contemporary art. I understand that it may be considered "promotional", but only in the sense to "let people know" about the aforesaid link between Stereograms and figurative art. The reference to this Italian artist is, in my opinion, relevant, since it is about an artwork depicting an autostereogram, entirely made of handwriting. I've always thought that random dot Autostereograms were images only created by computers. When I discovered in an exhibition that they might also be created through handwriting, I was surprised. In other words, I've frankly believed that it could be of public interest. Nevermind. Best regards Adriana (Adriana Franza (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Hi Jamie, apparently by high resolution professionally taken photo of Blink is a camera photo that is not good in your opinion. I am highly offended and I believe that your photo edits to Blink-182 are based on opinion and childish. The fact that my photo, which it newer and just as clear photo wise is being removed because of your personal opinion is immature and unprofessional. The fact that you have threatened to block me from editing because of small issue like this shows how you must always get your way. PacoDaKing14Sportz (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble parsing your first sentence, but you seem to not understand what image resolution is. The photo you keep removing has a resolution of 3,646 × 2,188 pixels. The photo that you took from your camera phone has a resolution of 666 × 344 pixels. If you think your photo is just as clear, you need to schedule an appointment with your optometrist. If you want to add your own photos to Wikipedia, stick to subjects taht are lacking a photo altogether. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to review the article when once you (or someone else) has created it. However, per WP:CRYSTAL, it might make sense to start with a draft in your userspace, since the album isn't due to be released until April. Given that the name of the album and album art have already been released, and that he's taking preorders for it, suggest that it's probably OK to create the article before the official release. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bridge hoaxer
User:I Love Bridges who you blocked is back, quacking, as User:I Love Bridges 2, and I have blocked him. I, too, am racking my brains to remember another bridge hoaxer not so long ago - I learned quite a lot about the Miami area while debunking his contributions. This one has spent much of his effort plastering random db notices on existing articles, and was followed on Lordville-Equinunk Bridge by several IPs doing the same. I will probably start an SPI, but will try first to track down the earlier bridge hoaxer, whose style was very similar. JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have found my previous batch of bridge hoaxes, but it wasn't a registered user. About mid-February User:I Love Bridges1 plus a number of IPs in the 166.216.130.* range, geolocating to Wichita, made a string of hoax drafts like Draft:Thomas Jefferson Memorial Bridge. Today, most of the IPs who followed ILB2's mucking around at Lordville-Equinunk Bridge were also from Wichita, so it seems to be the same guy. I'll start an SPI tomorrow, more as a reference point than because I think it will actually help. JohnCD (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. I've seen serial hoaxers around before, but I don't recall a bridge-related one. Will be interesting to see if a CU identifies any sleepers. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The new capital ofAndhra Pradesh do exist. Only the thing is there are no government secretariat and assembly. The bill was officially passed in the state assembly to recognize the area as the new capital of AP on31 Dec 2014. On 1 Apr 2015, it was named by the state cabinet unanimously as Amaravathi. Even I objected it till yesterday. But certain IPs adding the info,, which I read today in the news as official. If you want I can provide references. Any comments?--Vin09 (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been built yet; thus it doesn't exist. The wording I reverted to acknowledged that; your wording made it seem as if the regional government had actually moved there and were functioning. OhNoitsJamieTalk 19:25, 5 April 2015 (UT)
Hello O. I wish this was a question asking if you could recommend any nice Bed & Breakfasts in your area. Unfortunately, it is about the rambling rants on Bullets & Bracelets talk page. There are several accusations about me and others that have no basis in fact and, thus, violate WP:NPA. Rev/del might be too much to ask for but could they at least be blanked. If they can't I will understand but I thought it would be worth asking. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk22:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. At Ponyo's suggestion I filed a SPI about B&B. It is mostly procedural but I did mention a couple things that B&B had stated in the posts that were R/D'd. So you will be getting a ping at that thread and I wanted to let you know about it in case any questions come up. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk23:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie, I thought I was leaving at the bottom of the Talk Edit part. Sorry about that. I hope that is is correct.
On the COI is the right way to do it to just cite the reference to the Acres USA Magazine April 2015 article on to the Pig page? Would it be like this:
Pubwvj (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Walter[reply]
The right way to do it is NOT go around Wikipedia and add advertisements for your business on other pages. There are already plenty of citations for pigs being omnivore, and the article already mentions that some pig operations are pasture based. OhNoitsJamieTalk20:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Editors Royalmate1,2,3 etc
Clearly I was aware that the chances of these editors all being within the same puppet farm ware amazingly high. I note your input; I just had a puckish impulse to see how he would attempt to excuse himself. I did not seriously expect to believe him. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"20:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We did discuss changing the picture on the foreskin talk page. I think you should have talked before changing my changes.--BT33015 (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is in response to a change you made on the intellectual property page: The links I posted seemed extremely relevant to the topics, and the specific contributions I made. I do not understand why you would remove them. The sources I cited were extremely written and detailed and would be helpful to those looking at intellectual property. Could you please explain why you would delete the links I wrote?
I don't find you at all in the Talk:Foreskin page where this topic was discussed. Now that I have looked into the picture, I see that it is in fact your penis; therefore I believe there is some self-interest involved. I'll admit since the series I replaced yours with are my photos there is some self-interest involved wanting to see my photos displayed; however it's not my penis and therefore there is no exhibition on my part. It's my opinion my series is better, shows more angles and provides better detail; however that's only my opinion and I believe this discussion will be pointless.
--BT33015 (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My penis? That's funny stuff. How on earth did you come to that conclusion? The only thing you'll find going through the history of this and similar pages is me telling people repeatedly "we have plenty of photos of this already." You don't have any consensus on the talk page to add pictures of your junk to this article. OhNoitsJamieTalk
Vandal Bruceki is at it again
Hi, Jamie. The vandal Bruceki is at it again defacing wiki page Sugar Mountain Farm page.
For example there is a Farming Magazine that used to have the article that mentions Sugar Mountain Farm online but now it is only available in the print version. I don't know why they have limited access online, some magazines do that, but that does not change the fact that Sugar Mountain Farm was discussed in the print article which is cited in that reference. Bruceki should not be editing things like that out - they're in paper copy, real world, farming magazine.
The openfarmtech.org project appears to be discontinued and the domain name taken over by someone else and they now have a new domain name http://opensourceecology.org which I found easily by googling. I have undone his vandalism and I'll go through each thing, check and update.
Bruceki is a stalker who as you know (based on your comments on his Talk page) has done this to other farms. He spends a lot of time on his blog attacking people. Can you stop him from defacing pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pubwvj (talk • contribs) 04:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Pubwvj (talk) Walter[reply]
I have updated the links. There are print magazines that are no longer publishing like LivinMagazine but I have both PDF and hard copy of those, they are valid citations. The real world changes over time and web content is not always available into the future, sadly.
Pubwvj (talk) Walter
Bruceki is at it again. He did tone down his actions a little with some of them being requests for citation some of which were reasonable and I have found additional citations and added those. He also just throws in lots of extra requests for citations for things that are already covered by existing citations and he added his opinions and falsifications to the talk page.
Pubwvj (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, nothing that I've seen Bruceki do can be described as "vandalism." On the other hand, it's clear he has an agenda, and has violated WP:SYNTH at times (which he's been warned about). I didn't look closely at his edits, but all of them seemed to be removing sources or statements that he felt were not in agreement with each other. For that sort of thing, if you feel strongly that the source does support a statement, make a note on the talk page with a quotation from the source. I'll take a closer look at the edits later today myself. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Please let me know if any of the sources need supporting quotes and I will work on that. Some of the things he removed simply are not on the web but are in paper magazines. Pubwvj (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am reading through that page. Bruceki's latest attack is he is adding false statements to the talk page. For example he states
"Much of the production of this farm is made into high-processed meat products[1] that would mask boar taint to begin with."
That is false. His technique is to make a false statement so that then he can quote and cite that page of a false statement. He's done this before elsewhere with various false statements.Pubwvj (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would clearly be WP:SYNTH, which he's been warned about. However, I don't see in the recent article history where he posted that. BTW, deleting article talk page posts is usually not allowed unless they are off-topic or purely disruptive. Questioning sources and statements of the article on the talk page is not disruptive. OhNoitsJamieTalk20:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the questioning of sources that I am having an issue with - I have added citations and answered questions. It is his injecting false statements into the Talk page that I object to him doing. He is using the Talk as a way to make patently false statements, lies. This is the same thing he does on his blog and elsewhere. He is being disruptive. If his past history is an indicator of the future he will then use the Talk page to make attacks, citing the existence of that statement there on the Talk as a proof of his lies. I would like to remove the falsifications that he is making but since I should not I have instead answered each one individually? I've answered his other various lies in the past in other places but it does no good because he keeps doing it and then uses his own statements as citations to 'prove' additional statements. For example his statement about high-processed meats is false and it is not something he would even know or be able to prove one way or the other. The majority of our meat is sold raw as pork chops, roasts, etc. His citation does not prove anything but he uses it to give authority. Likewise his statement about the processing covering boar taint in the hot dogs is false and more over he has no way of knowing since he doesn't eat it. What he is doing is using the Wiki Talk page as an extension of his blog to attack and make falsifications. He has been told not to do that per his own Talk page but he continues to do it as sly as possible and will edge into more flagrant lies as he gets away with it.Pubwvj (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He isn't violating any rules by bring up verification issues on the talk page. He's treading close to violating WP:SOAPBOX in general, but I don't see anything actionable at the moment. Your best course of action is to either provide a third-party, relabiable to back up any statements that have "cite needed" tags, or to remove those statements. Primary sources (i.e., links from the farm's website) can be used to back up what a business claims, but they should be used sparingly and judiciously. From Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources:
An article about a business: The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities. It is not likely to be an acceptable source for most claims about how it or its products compare to similar companies and their products (e.g., "OurCo's Foo is better than Brand X"), although it will be acceptable for some simple, objective comparison claims ("OurCo is the oldest widget business in Smallville" or "OurCo sells more widgets than anyone else in New Zealand"). It is never an acceptable source for claims that evaluate or analyze the company or its actions, such as an analysis of its marketing strategies (e.g., "OurCo's sponsorship of National Breast Cancer Month is an effective tool in expanding sales to middle-aged, middle-class American women").
Thank you. His soapboxing is what I was trying to say. What I'm getting primarily from Bruceki isn't feedback but him going in and deleting things that are cited, sometimes as only in paper magazines but still very real, or he's making patently false statements as he is now doing on the Talk page and had been doing on the Wiki page. He has been attacking me, and other people, for years. This is a pattern of behavior with him which you'll find on his blog and other places he posts. I think I have taken care of all citations with the recent updates. I appreciate your rewordings. I'm trying to get the wording correct so that it will be a good and proper Wiki page and appreciate your help. Are there any specific sections you would suggest I focus on. I don't do "Our A is better than other people's A" sort of statement. I don't think I ever do that as I don't like such statements. What I try and focus on is what we do. e.g., We raise our pigs on pasture. Pasture makes up the vast majority of their diet.[2] We don't castrate[3][4] If there are any statements that are not straight forward factual then please let me know as I appreciate your feedback.Pubwvj (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jamie, am I allowed to clean my own User:Talk page deleting old talk from it or is that required to stay? I ask because BruceKi leaves comments with innuendos there. Pubwvj (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly acceptable to delete (or archive) comments left by others on your talk page except if a user is actively blocked; in that case, a currently blocked user may not delete block notices or prior unblock requests. Additionally I should also note that Bruce is correct in that it is not appropriate to modify comments made by other users in this way. OhNoitsJamieTalk
Thank you. That's the issue. I didn't modify his comments. He says that and thus creates the implication that I did it but it is not true.Pubwvj (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I did not realize that was considered editing his comment since all I did was change the title to something I felt was more appropriate reflecting the content. Thank you for helping me better understand the talk page dynamics. Pubwvj (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie, as you had suggested I have been refraining from making edits on Sugar Mountain Farm, sticking to the talk page and observing. CorporateM has just made a huge number of different little and massive edits nearly deleting everything. The work that you had previously done is all gone. Nearly all discussion of what makes Sugar Mountain Farm unique and interesting to a Wiki reader is gone. I think that CorporateM has gone overboard. They have deleted: how animals are raised, limited feed discussion to just the whey which is a minor part of the diet, eliminate the discussion of the non-castration and boar taint which is innovative and in the livestock management field very important since it will likely be made illegal in the future just as gestation crates are being phased out (something Sugar Mountain Farm does not use).
There are a lot of national sources that support notability that have been deleted in the process of deleting so much content. Could you please look at this. With your help I was hoping to rewrite and have you and others approve an update that covered the topics. What we have now is just an 'it exists page'. He is also trimming it so far down that he is now questioning notability which was long ago established and supported by the Food and Drink as well as the Agriculture groups as per the top of the Sugar Mountain Farm talk page.
I don't know how to proceed from here and would appreciate your guidance. Is this the right place to put this question or should this be on the Talk page for Sugar Mountain Farm?Pubwvj (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to work it out on the article's talk page with CorporateM. I restored the fact that it's a pasture-based farm, which I believe is an important point and it is not difficult to find third-party sources for. On the the other hand, much of what CorporateM delete was a little shaky sourcewise, relying too much on primary sources. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie, Bruceki is doing synth and soapboxing on the talk:Sugar Mountain Farm page which you had warned him not to do.[1][2]. His synth consists of making overly broad statements, exaggerations such as "pubwvj/Walter, you have removed all references to the missed schedule dates from your blog" which is a false statement. He is doing synth and soapboxing by making predictions about the future which he has no valid data such as claiming completion dates for our project which he really has no part in other than he bizarrely send me a $100 donation towards it at one point (Hmm... a COI on his part since he is claiming to be an investor now - it was not an investment, it was a no strings attached donation and rather surprising given his long history). He's just trying to promote his agenda and that is not a useful part of improving the Wiki page. I will refrain from using the word 'lying' now because maybe he actually believes himself. I can not deal with him and his distortions. I do not want to engage him. Could you please help? Pubwvj (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jamie, I'm guessing you're done with this. I'm happy to talk about it, but I think that the context on the talk page for the article does that. Regards Bruceki (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jamie, in the interests of being clear here; you blocked me for posting a link to my blog on an articles talk page in a discussiona about sugar mountain farm; there were two other cites about the same topic so the blog was a tertiary source. My understanding is that the original research and cite bans generally applied to blogs apply to the article itself, and that SYNTH is explicitly allowed on talk pages. "...This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages" on WP:OR I'd like to hear your opinion on this so that I can understand your point of view. I'll note that other links to blogs were also offered in the same discussion by another editor who had been warned about posting blog entries repeatedly for years, some of which had been removed by you from various articles. So I get blocked, the other guy doesn't, and all of it seems to be allowed on talk pages. Bruceki (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I gave you a final warning to stop posting links to your blog; as it's irrelevant to any discussions here and (2) using it as part of pointless synth speculation, as you did here, is disruptive. If you return to editing either of those farm pages, I will propose a topic ban on ANI. While the article talk pages has looser rules than articles themselves, article talk pages are also WP:NOTAFORUM, and using them to discuss your speculation, speculation that you know well would never be allowed on the article page, is clearly violating that. OhNoitsJamieTalk13:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm writing to you because I have just seen the block placed on User:FreeatlastChitChat, and I must say I am very shocked by it, and in particular by your comment "Your request only further demonstrates that you do not understand our WP:NPOV policy". I would strongly suggest that you are wholly wrong about that. Note that the very article in question, "rape jihad", has just been deleted and salted. Furthermore, as I have explained here the edit summary "No mention of rape jihad Anywhere in the sources given", was entirely accurate in terms of its content. It was just slightly misphrased. The section was supported by eleven citations to articles, not one of which mentioned "rape jihad" in their content. One of them used it as a catch-phrase in the article title, even though it was never used in the article at all. This one citation had been deemed completely unreliable by WP:RSN. In effect FreeatlastChitChat was removing a section which was supported by eleven citations with no content related to phrase. User:Pax has repeatedly misrepresented this as a "lie" on FreeatlastChitChat's part. At most, it was a very slight slip-up in phrasing. In reality he was correctly applying Wikipedia policy, having properly gone to WP:RSN. I really think you have been misled by Pax's misrepresentations of the facts here. FreeatlastChitChat has shown that he "understands our WP:NPOV policy" very well. I think an injustice against a sincere editor should be overturned. Paul B (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't place the block; I only denied the user's last unblock request. If that user wishes to submit another unblock request, they are free to do so. I'm taking no further action with regards to that user or the now-deleted article. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know you didn't. I'm saying you were wrong not to overturn it for reasons I have given and to which you have not responded. Why are you "taking no further action" if you were wrong? If you were not, all you have to do is explain why. Wrongs should be righted, as not to do so damages the encyclopedia by sending away good editors and creating resentment. An editor who gets such a curt and frankly unfair response to their first unblock request is unlikely to make another. Paul B (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it important that an unfair and inaccurate statement such as "Your request only further demonstrates that you do not understand our WP:NPOV policy" should not simply stand in the record as the 'last word'. Paul B (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:LuisaDG Link removal
Hi Ohnoitsjamie,
thank you very much for your edit - the removal of those links was of course completly called for as I see now (after having read the Wikipedia policy documents). However I still believe that FungiQuest contains relevant information about these rare fungal infections - would a link to a subsite of FungiQuest showing only the case reports of patients infected by the respective fungus be considered acceptable?
I believe these informations would be helpfull for physicians turing to Wikipedia (often the first search result) as they reflect clinical courses and how they have been affeted by the choice of treatment. Furthermore I do believe these links to be appropriate, as links to case reports are already present on these Wiki-pages and FungiQuest mostly contains cases not reported in pubmed listed journals. If there are any further alterations necessary to improve usefullness and enable access through Wikipedia I would be glad to hear about them.
Greetings
LuisaDG (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that my posting the link to the FungiQuest mainpage on many articles looks like link canvassing but I hope you believe me it was due to a lack of technical accumen on my part and not intended as spam!
I made a similar mistake in the German Wikipedia and was informed by one of the admins that deep-linking to the relevant cases would be acceptable under WP:ELYES Nr.3 - after modifying my entries from main-page-link to deep-links the links were accepted. To further explain why I believe the links should be admitied I would like to provide one of the suggsted deep-links: http://www.fungiquest.net/FungiQuest/fungiquest-master.php?chk=Go&query=Scedosporium - as you can see the FungiQuest tool simply provides an overview of infections caused by this fungus, so basically it is similar in content to a case report. As case reports are allowed to be linked I believe that FungiQuest links should be allowed to.
Furthmore I would once more like to stress that my main intrest lies in providing information on the diagnosis and treatment of rare fungal infections - so if external links are not acceptable and there is another way in that we could make the information contained in FungiQuest availible to physicians turing to wikipedia for research I would be very willing contribute in that way. 134.95.34.23 (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see how you arrived at the conclusion that this constitutes link canvassing (i.e. my initial error), but I still believe it does not constitute link canvassin and would like to argue my case:
External links to multiple PubMed-subpages are allowed, as it is the biggest database of peer reviewed journal abstracts.
External links to IMDB are allowed, as is is the biggest database of movie information. The same holds true for reviews linked on RottenTomatoes
FungiQuest is the single biggest database of rare fungal infection cases - therefore links to this cases should be allowed. Unlinke IMDB and RottenTomatoes Fungiquest is nonprofit, contains no advertisment of any kind or anything else other than the pure case reports.
The data in Fungiscope (the database behind FungiQuest) has been the basis of multiple peer reviewed publications in high-ranking medical journals (i.e. in Hematoligca: http://www.haematologica.org/content/98/10/e127.abstract , or Crtical Reviews in Microbiology: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/1040841x.2012.711741 ). Furthermore it is offically endorsed by all leading scientific societies in the field of medical mycology including ISHAM (International society of human and animal mycology), ESCMID (European society of clinical microbiology and infectious disease), ECMM (European conference on medical mycology) and many more national scientific societies.
To sum up, I want to apologize for my initial edits, which undoubetly constitued link canvassing and ask you to reconsider allowing links, not to the FungiQuest main page, but to specific case reports from within articles about that specific pathogen (i.e. a link to Scedosporium casereports in the Scedosporium article, a link to Mucorales casereports in the Mucorarles article) LuisaDG (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the links weren't allowed; I said we don't permit link canvassing, especially by a single purpose account. Links to Pubmed have been added by a wide variety of editors as references, not by a single person affiliated with PubMed. I'm not discussing it further, as our policy is clear on this. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry that you do not allow to share valuable information. I ask for a Dispute resolution noticeboard.LuisaDG (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
==Notice of External links noticeboard discussion==
This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard is taking place regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is [[{{{Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard}}}#Link removal without the possibility of improving the contribution|Link removal without the possibility of improving the contribution]]. Thank you. --LuisaDG (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
