↓↓↓ NEW MESSAGES GO TO THE BOTTOM. NOT THE TOP. ↓↓↓
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.
PLEASE LEAVE NEW COMMENTS AT THE *BOTTOM* OF THIS PAGE.
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi Ohnoitsjamie.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
Hello, Ohnoitsjamie. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Ohnoitjamie I'm wandering how I can creat the page Tyler Davis I saw it was deleted multiple time for the article was in appropriate and non sense. But I was wonder how I can create this page for Penn State Kicker Tyler Davis when it is protected from violence and to prevent vandalism. Cclark0 (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest using the AFC (articles for creation) process; if the article is accepted, we can unprotect it at that point. Also note our notability guidelines specifically as they pertain to college athletes. At a glance, I'd say Davis might qualify, but it's not a slam dunk either. The three reliable sources with non-trivial coverage I was able to find were all local; I think usually college players need wider coverage than that to merit an article. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Violation of an indefinite image upload ban
Hi Jamie,
The reason I'm writing you this is because the admin who personally unblocked the user in question hasn't been active for some time now (Coffee), but I saw that you had left a comment on the page as well back then, which resulted in the eventual "verdict". This user in question, "NadirAli" had his/her indefinite block lifted on 24 February 2016, on the condition that he'd receive an indefinite topic ban on uploading images. However, it seems that he has violated this 2-3 days ago on numerous ocassions as he uploaded a new WP:OR-loaded map (without any sources) on several articles[1][2][3] -- a map which he in fact has created himself on top of that as well.[4]
I'd like to add to that, that even though the block log of this user reaches well into the double digits for a plenthora of reasons, and apart from this topic ban violation, he has continued with quite a few of these very same reasons for which he was blocked priorly, such as deleting sourced content without an edit summary, adding sources that blatanty violate WP:RS,[5][6], as well as still a battleground-like editorial pattern, whenever he/she feels like doing so.[7][8][9]. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it but got sidetracked; my apologies for not at least providing a timely perfunctory response. As far as I could tell, the ban was on uploading new images; I don't see where the user has done that since the ban with put in place (rather, they added old images to an article). If the image they've added is inaccurate/original research/whatnot, then that's more of a content dispute. Let me know if there's something I'm missing here. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ohnoitsjamie Hey, thanks much for the reply. No problem. Well, that's the whole thing. The image was in fact not new; he uploaded it himself on 19 November 2016 (well after the ban was imposed as you can see),[10], and then went on to add it to numerous articles here on Wikipedia.[11][12][13] straight after, without any edit summary. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...not sure how I missed that the first time I looked; I think I was looking at the image it replaced instead (which had been uploaded in February). Since it happened a month ago, I'm just going to remove them for now; if he persists in re-adding them, will block. OhNoitsJamieTalk23:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aight. So no ANI needed? That's what Katie told me to bring it to namely (I explained the whole matter to her, just in case you wouldn't reply anymore), as she said that that was one of the conditions of the unblock given by Coffee himself (quote: "If you violate this ban, you will be blocked indefinitely and a siteban will be proposed at WP:ANI, considering your past actions.").Link here. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly welcome to take it to AI. My only involvement with the matter was declining one of the unblocks, and as such, I don't feel 100% comfortable handing out a block a month after the fact. If Coffee or anyone else feels a block is merited, I won't dispute it. OhNoitsJamieTalk01:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to form a section at ANI, but to my amazement, I noticed that he's at it once again; literally two hours ago, he reverted you on every place where you removed his map, and thus blatantly reinstated it once again.[14][15][16] - LouisAragon (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LouisAragon, I should have been informed of this complaint as even ANI requires a reporting user to inform the one he is complaining about. The file was loaded to commons. No evidence was given for the alleged original research. The chart is a visual illustration of reliably sourced content already on the article and the newer edition was added onto commons. You ought to be coming directly to me rather than mis-reporting me for uploading a file to commons (the same file was already on Wikipedia, I just replaced it with an updated commons file). As I see it, this is dodging WP:BRD. Why was evidence of the alleged "original research" not brought forth to me?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:OR? You created a image yourself without sourcing the information represented in that image. How is that not OR? There's no requirement to discuss topic ban breaches before blocking. Given that your were only unblocked with the explicit closing of a loophole on your topic ban that you attempted to exploit, I'd hardly classify it as a "mis-report." OhNoitsJamieTalk14:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The chart was already there prior to the ban. I just replaced it with the commons file to ensure accuracy. As the for the OR, the it's directly based on the reliably sourced text it represents, nothing more. Specifically this section. When I asked for discussion, I meant for my alleged OR to be brought up on the talk page or me directly contacted. Regards.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ways to improve Carl Hart
Hi, I'm CaroleHenson. Ohnoitsjamie, thanks for creating Carl Hart!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This is a great article, and based on his experience, I am guessing that there will be a number of newspapers, magazines, and books that could be used as sources. This will help prove notability over use of primary source.
When I first started editing on Wikipedia you were kind enough to give me somehelpful advice. I found out that I was not really cut out for editing but still enjoy reading articles, mostly on bands and artist on Wikipedia. There are a number of pages which I return to and one of those is the Seasick Steve page which I was at today. I saw to my suprise that someone had put a new section in the main article about an unauthorised biography with the name of the book and the authors name . I couldn't really see how an unauthorised biography could warrant its on section on the main page of an artist. I went to the talk page and saw there was much discussion about it, some pretty contentious.
What bothers me is that this seems to be pretty blantant advertising of an unauthorised book on a internationally know artists Wikipedia page.
I don't know if this was done by the author or people associated with the author but to me the bottom line is, it is still advertising.
I was wondering if you could have a look at the page and see if you agree.
Thanks for time Aircastle (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie
Thanks for your input. One of my concerns is that one of the references,The Arts Desk, was written by the author himself as he apparently works there.
The Gaudian reference being just a blog.
It seems to me it would be sufficient enough to mention the book without title or aurthor since as it stands, it ends up being an advertisment for a book on an internationally known artist Wikipedia page which is currently for sale.
Thanks again for your time Aircastle (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier today I created the article John Lujan. When I created it, it said an article with that title had been deleted (if I am remembering correctly, by you) due to block evasion by a user named Billy Hathorn. I have recently become familiar with that user's edits due to my work on Texas political pages. After I created the Lujan article, an IP address editor made substantial edits to the page. See: [17]. These edits seem to me to be similar to Hathorn's edits, which are characterized by what I perceive to be excessive biographical detail about individuals and their family members. Wasn't sure exactly what to do in this circumstance but wanted to bring it to your attention in case action is needed. Marquardtika (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit of both. When I tried creating the Afd, the afd2 template did not work correctly, so I was trying to cut-and-paste from previews to fix it. In my frustration I apparently deleted an entry for the list step. Thanks for catching and fixing that! OhNoitsJamieTalk16:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An AFD you participated in closed and is now at merge
After it closing as no consensus, it was immediately listed in a merge discussion at Talk:Forever (website). Since some people found their way already, making the same arguments they did in the AFD, I figured it only proper that everyone involved in the past discussion be notified regardless of whether they said Keep or Delete, I contacting all those who hadn't found their way there already. DreamFocus18:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Please reinstate two state legislator articles deleted in August 2016
Hello, you deleted Jon Ackerson and Bob Heleringer in August 2016 because "Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". This may well be a fair reason to delete them. However, these are real current/former state legislators in Kentucky, and per WP:POLOUTCOMES, they are reasonably considered to be notable (or at least their articles should be given the chance to demonstrate it)., and therefore I would like to see them restored. It's also possible the editor in question developed articles for other Kentucky state legislators -- I would like to see those restored too. All these articles will be taken under the wing of their respective WikiProjects (Louisville, Kentucky). Thank you for your consideration. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work20:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cole Valley, San Francisco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Forest Knolls. 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.
My name’s Alexander Harrisingh. I’m a student at American University, and I’m working on a project on Wikipedia and Youtube. I noticed you made a relatively large amount of edits to the List of Youtubers Wikipedia page and I was wondering if I could get your input on a few questions.
1. After talking to a few Wikipedians and doing some research, it seems as though Youtubers have a harder time obtaining a Wikipedia page and/or higher quality pages than other “traditional” professions. Do you agree with this assessment? If so, why do you think this is?
2. What could Wikipedia change to better accommodate notable figures from newer platforms like Youtube? What could Youtube do to better live up to Wikipedia standards?
3. If you could change the guidelines on Notability in any way, what changes would you make and why? If not, why do you think they’re stable enough that future societal progression could still be covered equally?
I would like to request that the article Fluidware · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions] be restored. I put the request here originally, but was told to contact you directly...
Hi, would you be able to lower the protection level for Bougenvilla? The sock-puppetry problems seem to be over and having the page editable only by administrators doesn't seem to be needed. Thanks! – Uanfala17:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.
The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.
To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.
We really appreciate your input!
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
Hello, Ohnoitsjamie. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I deleted both given that they didn't have their own articles, but after taking a closer look at the provided sources, both are reasonable candidates to have their own article, so I restored them. I usually try to be somewhat conservative when I do "notability sweeps" on school and name pages. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I again removed them. One of which had a reference from a tabloid newspaper (The New York Post), the other a source from a mid-level newspaper 25 years ago. If they are notable, there would be more than that....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?00:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I'd personally like to see WP:WTAF become policy, it's an essay as it stands. The policy I was attempting to follow was from Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Selection_criteria: Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. I agree that the sources provided were by no means a slam dunk for notability (and if that's all there were in the wake of an article creation, I'd !vote for deletion). Other relevant links:
I'm adding these here for future reference, as I'm sure this is bound to come up as I continue to cleanup large swaths of non-notable names from school, city, and name articles. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been cleaning up Notable people (NP) sections of town articles for a long time. Of late I have been also working on school alumni sections. They have the same problem as NP. Mercy College (New York) being an example....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?15:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for deleting that spam url from the spamdexing page. I spent a good hour trying to recover my account so I could do it. Then I gave up on the email and made a new username, only to find that you'd beat me to the punch. Lol. Just wanted to say, "Hi," and, "Thanks!" Helwriaeth (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted the subheadings in the section of the Derby article covering notable people, e.g sport / writing / acting etc. and the whole list is now run together. Your deletions are not helpful and I want to explain why I shall reinstate the subheadings on my next edit. As you have left it, the sections are all together. But they listed notables in their own date order, so without the sections there is no sense to the overall order - its neither date order nor alphabetical. Nor has it "condensed" the list, it's just removed a couple of blank lines.
As you will see from earlier edits, I'm in the (rather length) process of getting the list into a manageable and readable state. My objective is to be able (appropriately) to delete the warning at the top of the list. I've added citations for the various sections and my final step will be to cross check the list with the formal list of (253) people from Derby. That will include some additions and deletions, but the list will probably still need some subheadings.
A couple of things: (1) The first word of a heading is capitalized per our manual of style (2) while there are limited rules and guielines for lists of notable names, if you look around you'll see that by far the most common convention is to list the names in ascending alphabetical order. (See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Introductory_material_for_embedded_lists. Only in large lists that merit their own page (see Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Selection_criteria does it usually become useful to break the list into categories. The size of the Derby list is probably borderline. The way you're currently approaching it is going to result in too many categories given the size. I'd suggest a single category for "Arts, literature, and entertainment", a section for Political and military, etc. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Jamie
I'm pleased you now see the merit in subsections and I'm happy to go along with the way you've done it. That said, your edit caused me an edit conflict in adding further citations. I've saved my work and will try and again tomorrow to complete the missing citations. I'll also re-order the new subsections in date order too. Might we try somehow avoid getting on each others' toes like this? May I gently and politely suggest you park Derby for a few days? I'll add a note here when I'm done.
Sorry about that; I didn't see any activity within the last hour so I assumed you weren't in the middle of working on it. I'll leave further edits to you. As an aside, it would be nice if we had a more standardized format for these lists; some pages use bulleted lists (with or without multi columns), some use table. I personally prefer the former; I think tables are awkward and pointless for list of notable people; they're best suited for information that benefits from multi-column sorting. In the meantime, the best we can do is keep it simple and reasonably consistent. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk23:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jamie
I promised to let you know; all done on new notables for Derby. Further thoughts at Talk Derby
This page is in the making and growing on a community basis, and has just begun. Wikipedia is a community of authors and not a solo affair, right. So are the donations for wikipedia. So for the sake of peace, and collective responsibility for peace, let's keep it that way. thankyou. Ehr1Ros2 (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Penn state child abuse scandal
You removed the 'Further reading' section in Jerry Sandusky because it contained only one (contrarian) book. I now added a similar section in the article on the scandal with the four books that I could find, including Pendergrast's. The three other books appear more relevant to the scandal than to the biography of Jerry Sandusky. I hope this is reasonable. Aerkem (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, good man. I am new editor in wikipaedia. I am new, so you be no angry. If I want to put edit two picture only in articl and one line down title, then how i doing the edition, you help me man by instruction. God bless you and may you long life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.79.69.185 (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for reply man. i know my English poor. I shall take help from friend. i need to put 2 pictures (upload and no copyright violate, i promise!!!!). Then I want to put caption under picture. 106.77.43.168 (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your removal of content from the lead of the article here. The content is sourced in the "Background and development" section, sourced to Billboard where Madonna says "It was challenging to keep cohesion with the sound and the direction of the record with people coming and going in a revolving door of creativity." —IB[ Poke ]18:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that it's source in the "Background" section, but don't you think it's a bit redundant to also include it in the lede? It's a single comment made by Madonna about the album; seems a little WP:WEIGHTy for the lede. OhNoitsJamieTalk20:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had not been to the Seasick Steve page in over a year and was a little shocked to see the disruptive unsourced editing going on. I do not edit any longer but just had to jump in there and revert a couple of these unsourced edits by User talk:80.195.100.70 The IP editor right away reverted my edits. A long time Wikipedia contributor User:Thomas.W then warned this IP editor
and in the process found that it is the same IP address that has carried out disruptive edits for the last 5 years on the page and has resulted in 3 previous blocks.(could you possibly look into this IP?) From what I can tell, the basis for most of this type of editing has been, at least for the last 2 years, has been the unauthorised biography that i wrote to you about a year or so ago. I wanted to readdress that with you. As a fan of the artist, I unfortunately bought the book after it came out. In my opinion, it was one of the worst piece of journalism I have ever read and I am not alone apparently.(reviews on Amazon.co.uk) It really falls under Tabloid Journalism and again in my opinion, is nowhere near a quality source that Wikipedia demands. The writter himself works at a music blog called The Arts Desk. The only review of the book at the time of release was from, The Art Desk itself. Presumably by the writter himself, since the review was not signed. It was then picked up by a music writter for the Guardian's music online blog.(not print) It seemed at the time it was just picked up for its sensationalism and I'm sure there was no question about checking its accuracy or not.
The author had no previous track record at all and I still can't find anythng at all about the publisher (Music Press). Certainly not a well known, reputable publishing house, with quality standards, to say the least. The book itself is basically just conjecture and maybes and might haves. There is almost no source material or facts at all. The writter did not interview one person who new Seasick Steve before the 2000's and those after, just a friend or two of the artist in Norway, who's information is in no way conflicting with the longstanding article. The only exception to this, is a conversation with the alleged (in the writter's own words) "estranged son" of Seasick Steve, whose own main motive for being interviewed as far as I can tell, was apparently to get his own bands name mentioned in the book.
I just want to to give you one strange example about the writting style in this book. It kind of says it all.
A little background first. It is commonly known from different articles that Seasick Steve moved to Notodden Norway from the USA in the early 2000's. Apparently they mainly picked the town because of the huge blues scene there but also as an aside, because his wife ( who is Norwegian) had read the novel, T.Singer by the Norwegian writer, Dag Solstad. The book is apparently just a novel about a man moving to Notodden to change his life. According to Wikipedia, Dag solstad's '"early books were considered somewhat controversial, due to their political emphasis leaning towards the Marxist–Leninist side of the political spectrum" The novel, T Singer, has nothing to do with politics at all from what I can gather and yet the author of the unauthorised biography has inferred somehow and wtote that Seasick Steve's wife probably has 'Communists leanings' due to the fact she read this novel! It seems just ridiculous, baseless and certainly presumptuous to write somthing like that and also could be considered hurtful. WP:BLP It also has nothing to do with the artist at all. This book is just full of this type of writing, making this book, again in my opinion, a highly unreliable and questionable source. I get the feeling that most of the ( mainly) IP editors
who have used this to edit the article have not even read the book. Just cherry picking the controversial parts that suits them to try and change the article. Jamie, in my opinion, this 'Tabloid Book' has no place having its own section in this article. I have not been able to find one instance of an unauthorised biography having its own section on an well known artist Wikipedia page. This book,as far as I can tell, just died a death right away but it has been having a free ride in the article for almost 2 years. It is really the only place I have actually ever seen it advertised.
It has always seemed to me a case of self promotion. WP:Promotion
I was hoping you could have a closer look at the unauthorised bio's right to its own section on this artist page.
Thanks very much for your time
Aircastle (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of the unauthorized bio having a "right" to the page. It's arguable that the small section is appropriate given that the bio was covered in The Guardian. I see that there are articles in New Music Express and The Telegraph as well. On a related note, I blocked the anon IP for continued disruption after previous blocks. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The editor of the unauthorised biography pursued a very persistent campaign here in 2016 in order to promote the book and himself (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Wright (critic), an article created by User:HoboLow, who in a post, see link in the AfD, claimed to be the writer of the book, i.e. Matthew Wright, making it an autobiography). The publisher of the book, John Blake Publishing, is a small publisher in the UK who obviously will publish anything, whether it's true or not, as can be seen in the controversies section in the article linked to, and the book has been very severely critisized for being inaccurate, and making many claims that are easy to disprove, and seems to be written only to get publicity for the otherwise totally unknown writer. So I don't feel it merits any mention in the article... - Tom | Thomas.W talk15:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can see an argument for the book itself to not be directly "plugged" in Wikipedia, but the claims about the subject's background are covered in multiple reliable sources: [18], [19], [20], [21]. I've rewritten that section so that it's less of a book plug. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jamie for having a look. I really appreciate it. It was just my understanding that in the framwork of WP:BLP that the source should be a quality source by a writer of a proven track record and with expertise and published by a reputable publishing house with quality control. None of which this book vaguely meets. The fact that it was picked up by the above mentioned after its self review by The Arts Desk, in my opinion, does not make it any more of a 'Quality Source' but i guess it was a good story for them. I was just suprised to see this 'book' get its own section in the article. Thanks again for your explanation and I really appreciate your time.
Thanks also for your intervention with the disruptive IP.
Aircastle (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir,
You have claimed that edits done are somehow SPAM. They are no such thing. These edits are to links was to an educational online liberty that has provided much content for many articles on Wikipedia. As the administrator of this online museum, I wish to inform you that it holds the copyright for the rare images that it has contributed to many Wiki articles.
As you may not be familiar with this online resource, this online financial library has contributed to the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Museum of American Finance, and several major universities its material from visual archives, all for the purpose of educating the public on US Financial History and the US National Debt. This online library takes in NO MONEY and SELLS NOTHING. It is purely educational. It is also the ONLY resources of its kind that houses these images, and they are an important part of US financial history
It is entitled to make contributions to Wikipedia and be cited as an external link. Here is the quote taken from Wikipedia: External Links: What Can Normally be Linked:
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues..
I hope you will act in good faith, and not unfairly target contributions here on Wikipedia when they are not SPAM or self-promoting.
Just noticed you removed their liberally applied paper from a large number of articles. Yeah, that was spammy... however, it's actually an interesting study. I'm considering re-inserting it in Commensalism at least, where it's quite topical - unless there are other concerns with the source? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's your old friend again! You remember you instigated C.Fred (user) to block me on 19 Aug 2011? I am dying today, and before I die, I want to warn you. I deleted pictures from human anus article. My ghost will come in your dreams and my team of twenty trillion zombies will scare you. Jamie, don't go to sleep today! Btw I am dying at 5.00pm today. Byeeee. -210.212.162.179 (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indo-Iranic_languages_chart.jpg){kind=link}