User talk:Wikipedyst

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

January 2013[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.  Mbinebri  talk ← 14:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. As I am still learning in, this is very valuable information.  Wikipedyst  talk ← 23:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Natalia Kapchuk.jpeg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Natalia Kapchuk.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Blurred Lines 22:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I have contested the request and provided more information. Wikipedyst (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Natalia Kapchuk.jpeg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Natalia Kapchuk.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t c) 00:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I have forwarded the authorisation to the email above. Please have a look and clear the restrictions. Wikipedyst (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC), DNJournal, .ME blog ... and other domain name edits[edit]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear OhNoitsJamie. It is very kind of you to remind me of the Wikipedia rules. Thank you very much for your effort. However it looks like you reverted my additions without reading them at all. E.g., on .sa you reverted the information telling that second level were now open. On .gn you reverted correction of vs and many other pages that had no links at all. Why? Then to more recent additions: have you read the text? All of it is relevant to the corresponding articles. The references provided are to back the data and numbers up. If you would check and read the added facts, you would notice not only links, but also those to, .ME blog, etcetera. The only reason had about a dozen referencing was that the resource released unique statistics never available before. It is a hot topic now in domain name business. Check Twitter, the leading blogs et al. Check it in their stats section and you shall see for yourself. Backing up the facts is required by any encyclopedia, Wikipedia included. Please apply more thorough approach when checking the updated articles in the future and discuss them separately should you have any relevant comments. Bulk reversal is highly demotivating to say the least. Thank you for understanding and looking forward to more constructive cooperation with you. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 23:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC).
On .mobi itself one references covers all top sales. The issue was that this very same link was inserted as many instances. It should have been only one of course. This was corrected. Thank you for your attentive eyes. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 00:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
I have to agree with it's removal. How's it reliable? Even if it is reliable, why are it's listings worth noting? --Ronz (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
And you have a conflict of interest? --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
.mobi has section of Domain aftermarket. It was outdated. I have updated it. Why is it relevant? If you discuss the stocks of Google it is worth noting what events happen in the past to guide the readers on the developments. It makes the article richer. Of course I can drop the names and numbers without referencing them, but how would you or any other reader verify it then? Encyclopedia needs carefully selected sources, does it not? I have interest in many industries and try to contribute if I see a big miss. I have already told before, when new significant findings come up, I share them with wider community on Wikipedia. So do you? Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 00:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
You're not addressing the concerns.
Let's start with the coi concern: Your comments suggest you have an conflict of interest with this site. Please respond. --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
No coi in this case. New facts came out recently. E.g., published on top industry magazine by Mike Berkens ( | The Domains) where people discussed the matter and I have simply added the relevant findings to Wikipedia where appropriate. You and Ohnoitsjamie have reverted many changes without any merit or proper scientific discussion. Please let me know if you have any specific concerns regarding the edits or the facts added. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 00:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
Thanks. So no coi with this link. What about the other cases where you added inappropriate external links that were related to each other? --Ronz (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
No coi on other links. Purely backing the numbers and the facts. DNJournal for instance is run by Ron Jackson with whom there is no affiliation as well. I am picking relaible sources in every case, those trusted for years, worth referring to. I was really surprised to see so many of my edits reverted without any prior discussion. But thanks for taking good care of Wikipedia. This is probably the way to go. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 00:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
Wikipedia should add some karma meter which I would love to build. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 00:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
No coi then. Thank you.
Looks like almost all the external links you've added are inappropriate. Their being related makes it look as if you added them for promotional purposes. They should be removed.
Back to Are you familiar with our criteria for reliable sources?. In the context of WP:RS, how is it reliable? --Ronz (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Very reliable. Sedo has referred to it many times. E.g., FYI, Sedo is the company to trust. It is the top player in the domain name industry. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 00:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
Actually, Sedo j( is blacklisted from Wikipedia. If that's the best case we can make for keeping it, then it should be removed entirely from Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC) is probably blacklisted because it is a market place with millions of customers, some of whom likely spammed in the past with the links to their listings (just human nature, says nothing about Sedo). Sedo as the company is highly reliable. Its former founder Tim Schumacher is the Bill Gates of the industry. Is he reliable enough? On the other hand, Sedo publishes the best quarterly market reports. With your logic Sedo wiki entry should be removed as well? Let's be logical. You should check the facts. Q: How much do you know about the domain names and their business? A propos, is also blacklisted, as probably other links to Google pages etc. It does not mean Wordpress as the company should not be trusted. And then Google... Check the company rankings before judging. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 01:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
You've just me to google the topic. The Twitter account of the database is followed by the official and verified ICANN : : FYI ICANN is the body that regulates the Internet domain names and numbers (IPs) etc. Now that I have provided numerous facts to trust the sources' reliability, what are your facts against them? Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 01:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC).

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Let's assume it is reliable for sake of argument only. We can take it to WP:RSN later.

Another concern: "Even if it is reliable, why are it's listings worth noting?" It is a primary source, and as such should not be used except to provide details as needed when already covered by secondary or tertiary sources. See WP:PSTS. --Ronz (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be specific what article you want to discuss. E.g., on .gn I corrected the incorrect fact. On other instances I have updated the existing lists of domain name sales. Those were on Wikipedia for years. I did not created the entries, simply updated them up to date referring to the external sources with backing facts. Else Wikipedia would have articles not synced with the reality. Why these facts are worth noting? It is an existential question. I wrote already above why the added facts add value and enrich the articles. Please see above. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 02:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
If you're just going to ignore WP:PSTS then you have no reason to restore any of the links. --Ronz (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I can hear you. But can you discuss concrete cases, concrete links, not the general rules? This will help us to make the dialogue constructive. Thank you. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 02:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
I believe all that you've added fail WP:PSTS, certainly all that you've reverted.
Your most recent revert was to List of most expensive domain names. In all but one entry, you offered no sources other than For the one exception, you just added another primary source. --Ronz (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
As I told before, has just released the stats on all domain names sales. Those stats were not available before. There was no similar study before. The source has been verified. The knowledge was partially shared by me on corresponding Wikipedia articles. I thought we have nothing against relevant information. Or is your prime intention to discourage people from contributing to Wikipedia? Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 03:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
It's a primary source, correct? --Ronz (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I work with domain names for 10+ years. I have asked you already three times. How much do you know about the industry? Your credentials are very questionable. Yes, it is now regarded as the best source when it comes to the statistical data on historic domain name sales. Should you find any more primary source, please inform me and other industry experts about it. Thank you. You will earn +100 into karma for that. Now please ask user ‎Ohnoitsjamie not to revert any contributions without replying to this talk. He should be warned on fueling the warring too. He has just made two pages outdated. I have posted it on his Talk. But he keeps ignoring the arguments. Please act proportionally. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 03:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
It's a primary source then. I'm glad we agree.
So where and when could it be used without a secondary or tertiary source? It might be best to go to WP:RSN first, specifically indentifying List of most expensive domain names as one article where it might be useful alone if reliable. --Ronz (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Please do so. I have simply updated it for the data to be up-to-date. If you want to challenge the article existence, you are very welcome to. I am not challenging it. Also, please revert the changes of List of most expensive domain names‎ made by Ohnoitsjamie as he just made the page outdated and I already used my three reversals. Thank you. This will be highly appreciated. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 04:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
Please note that asking someone to revert for you in order to avoid a WP:3rr violation could be grounds for a block. --Ronz (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
What I was trying to say is that you are the only editor who engaged in the discussions and I have a feeling you got better understanding of the status of those two outdated pages. What I am actually asking you is to make them up-to-date. Thank you. Good night! Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 04:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
If they're just data aggregator sites as editors are suggesting, then they don't belong. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
What made them call it data aggregator? appears to be a long work. This data is not available anywhere like this. If you apply those editor's logic, then Bloomberg, Financial Times and BBC are all data aggregator. When someone calls something data aggregator, they should provide evidence. I have seen none so far. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 23:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
Take it up at WP:RSN as I've suggested. You might want to read over WP:RS carefully in preparation, then make a case based upon it rather than trying to put the burden on others. --Ronz (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see also my reply to Jmccormac below. I am not that advanced editor here, so I do not know how to start and certainly not sure I am entitled to lead what you call WP:RSN and WP:RS. I shall need you guidance and assistance. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 11:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC). only seems to have been in existence since December 2013. Wasn't (or isn't) one of the leading sites for domain sales history? I think it was sold but it seems to be in operation again. The site seems to offer summaries of various patterns and for TLDs (I don't think that Namebio provides summary data). There is a phrase on the discussion about .ME ccTLD that could have led to some problems (where it is claimed that you and other .ME registry staff edited the page). Perhaps you can clarify if this was a mistake (as it made it look like you are on the .ME ccTLD staff)? The problem with the links to, as I see it, is the way that they are being added to various ccTLD, sTLD and TLD pages in a manner that makes it appear that the website is being actively promoted. Just for the record, I think that the ccTLD pages should really just contain the basic details on the ccTLD rather than the secondary market or highest domain sales details. An expanded and more detailed Domain aftermarket article might be useful. It does come down to the issue of the site being a reliable source. Jmccormac (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I was travelling in the last two days. I confirm that I do _not_ work for .ME registry. I am not affiliated with them or any other top level domain. As to other editors, I do not know them personally, so you have to ask them. I have a generic interest in domain names, I follow the latest technologies, Internet including, music, and society. You can see it from my contribution as they are spread across these topics. I managed to contact and inquire about them, I asked how big they are and how do they compare to NameBio, etc. This is what I received: 'The actual sale database used by was built up and managed by Brands-and-Jingles and its partners from as earlier as 2005. For years, this private database was and is still used in the internal monitoring system that has millions of domain names on the radar screen and acts actively on their drops etcetera. In the cause of 2010 to 2013 the idea and data was presented to various industry players and as they had expressed particular interest in the scale of the results, the database rights were granted to with intension to share the historic domain name sale statistical data with the wider audience for the public benefit if the domaining industry and beyond it. The difference between NameBio database (or in fact any other known domain name database) and that of is significant. On IDN basis alone the latter provides 8,650 sale records. The former lists less than 60 of them, or about 150 times less.' I do not want to look like a spammer, so if you insist, I will update the sales without referring to At the moment, I found no other source as good and as informative. Should I find some alternative I shall bring it back here. Few articles are really outdated and need to be updated as soon as possible. Knowing the domaining industry well, I can tell you that sales and after market are the key factors of the game. Leaving them out is like talking about weather forecast systems without mentioning modern computing and algorithms that is involved in the business. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 11:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC). as well[edit]

I'm going ahead and removing as just more of the same - refspam added for promotional purposes. It shares Adsense id with (and many other domains listed below). --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You have just removed valid references to all valuable sources. '.ME of course' blog is well regarded in the industry and is republished by the industry leader, e.g., [1]. As you have noted and the blog may be run by the same people. Still both are very informative and resourceful. Most of the news site have AdSense on them, including The Economist. You now should go after all their links and remove them. I ask you once again, what is your expertise on domain names? So far you have demostrated generic knowledge of the web, but nothing about the domain names in particular. Can I talk to someone with more industry knowledge please? You should have no authority over these changes. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 19:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC).
You have it backwards. You have clearly demonstrated that you're here to promote these related websites.
If you would like to make a case for you own expertise, do so, but realize that it gives little weight to decisions here. See WP:EXPERTISE. --Ronz (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
As I have explained above, .ME of course! blog is the source referred not only by me, but many other Wikipedia editors. They too took information from it in the past and posted the findings on .me. You have failed to counter argument evidence provided. For no reason you and ‎Ohnoitsjamie have erased carefully presented research. Please invite other Wikipedia editors who are industry experts. Apparetly you have no knowledge on the matter. I understand you try to keep Wikipedia clean from spam, but removing valuable links and material does not buy you a credit. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 20:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC).
You are yet to present an argument that .ME of course blog, which is as old as .ME and stand for spam. Please revert back in the context of the added material. We can then talk. As of now, you are not really listening. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 20:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC).

Please stop reverting[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Ronz (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me reassure you that I have no intention of edit warring. I welcome the other editors to discuss the relevant topics on corresponding Talk pages. Please see also above. So far, I have provided all the arguments in the favour of restored changes. I will gladly answer any follow up questions. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 01:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
You misunderstand. One more revert on any one of a number of pages could be grounds for a block. --Ronz (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, this is the first time I have to revert so many changes in one day. Please see how many irrelevant reverts were done yesterday. With no discussions whatsover. Some one just went through all of my recent adds and reverted them, with merit or not. Never mind. Thank you for the update. I am up for a civilised discussions anyway. Please post facts and concrete questions, and I do my best to address them. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 02:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
The fact is that many editors try to exploit Wikipedia to add spam links. Few seem to pause to reflect on why articles do not already have several spam links in each paragraph—can they be the first to notice that anyone can edit? Spam is not appreciated by many editors, and that is why it is removed, and editors who insist of focusing on adding external links are generally unsuccessful. Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The items you have removed were not about the external links but the valuable information related to the article. The links where simply to back that data. Please read above.Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 03:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC).

Conflict of interest policy[edit]

Information icon Hello, Wikipedyst. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Remember when I mentioned that the links you were adding appeared related? Turns out I grossly underestimated the situation. While I'm not going to say it is absolutely certain you have a conflict of interest, for all purposes here on Wikipedia you do. --Ronz (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Final warning before block[edit]

Stop icon This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

As I have explained above, .ME of course! blog is the source referred not only by me, but many other Wikipedia editors. They too took information from it in the past and posted the findings on .me. You have failed to counter argument evidence provided. For no reason you have erased careful presented research. Please invite other Wikipedia editors who are industry expert. Apparetly you have knowledge on the matter. I understand you try to keep Wikipedia clean from spam, but removing valuable links does not buy you a credit. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 20:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC).
You're ignoring the problems, which make it more likely you'll be blocked. --Ronz (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Please remind me what was the problems you state I am ignoring? So far, I am adding relevant information and referencing it. On many occasions you have removed both the information and the references without discussing them in the context of each article. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 20:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC).
If you add spammy links again (such as or you will be blocked, period. I hope that is clear enough for you. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
They are not spammy links. Please provide any counter argument. These two resources are widely used in the industry. I have provided numerous evidence. They are used not only by me, but by others. In fact, as was stated, other editors have referred to the blog in the past. You did not comment on this as well as my other valid points. Please try solve the issue of you not willing or not having time to resolve the topic first. Wikipedyst Talk to Wikipedyst 20:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC).