[[User:BatteryIncluded|BatteryIncluded]] ([[User talk:BatteryIncluded|talk]]) 15:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[[User:BatteryIncluded|BatteryIncluded]] ([[User talk:BatteryIncluded|talk]]) 15:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
: I just got in tonight from a trip, when I get caught up with work, I'll look into it. Thanks! <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<font color="#D47C14">itsJamie</font>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 06:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
== Adding Images ==
== Adding Images ==
Line 950:
Line 950:
:Indefinite block. Also a definite sockpuppet account, from what I'm seeing. '''[[User:Enigmaman|<font color="blue">Enigma</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Enigmaman|<b><sup><font color="orange">msg!</font></sup></b>]]'' 06:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
:Indefinite block. Also a definite sockpuppet account, from what I'm seeing. '''[[User:Enigmaman|<font color="blue">Enigma</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Enigmaman|<b><sup><font color="orange">msg!</font></sup></b>]]'' 06:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
:: Thanks, I just got back in town from a trip to Amsterdam and Belgium, forgot to put up a Wikibreak notice. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<font color="#D47C14">itsJamie</font>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 06:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
== Hello Jaime ==
== Hello Jaime ==
Revision as of 06:44, 4 March 2008
Talk page
Welcome to Jamie's talk page!
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 usually do not respond to emails unless there's a valid reason why the question could not have been posted on a 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 and Wikipedia external link guidelines first. Because of Wikipedia's popularity, it has become a target for folks looking to promote their sites, which is against Wikipedia policies. If you read WP:SPAM and still feel that your link(s) does not violate those policies, let me know.
One common argument I hear is But so-and-so link is on that article, and it's commercial!WP:EL doesn't explicitly forbid In links to commercial sites; it depends on the notability of the link, its content, and if it's a reference or a notable pro/con argument on a controversial subject, etc. On the other hand, I think that many Wikipedians would agree that there are way too many commercial links at present time, so feel free to "prune away" if the link doesn't meet guidelines in WP:EL. Incidentally, if you've come here to complain that I've deleted links to your blog (especially a blog with advertising), don't bother. You'll have to find free advertising somewhere else. A good Google search will reveal plenty of places for that sort of thing.
Vandalism and insults left here will be recycled in the bit bucket. Remember: be nice!
PLEASE LEAVE NEW COMMENTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE.
Roadsters Link...
Jamie,
The other links on these sites, for places like SLKWorld and Benzworld are for web sites that display paid advertisements and also have paid subscriptions. MBRoadsters.com is a FREE site with no subscriptions given for forums and information for Mercedes-Benz Roadsters. It is also a site that meets Mercedes-Benz requirements as being a helpful site to their product's owners.
This site is a community for those cars, and not a money making venture. It is ramping up with many articles of how to fix things, and about the history. Why would it not belong in there, and money making sites that Mercedes-Benz does NOT appove of, especially ones using thier trademarks to make money, be allowed in?
1. The store is currently closed pending final approval by Mercedes Benz.
2 The store will be selling Polo shirts with the Roadsters logo and other logos approved by Mercedes Benz. These logos will be sewn on by a seniors group in Texas with the money from the shirts going to pay their material costs and any extra going as a donation for their not-for-profit senior education center.
You are so annoying. Every page has an External LINK and my external links are VALID !!!... Why do you keep removing them. My website is a genuine site.. please go check it out... it has ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING about afghans, afghan culture, afghan history, afghan music, afghan videos, afghan TV, afghan EVERYTHING. And in each appropriate section..i have placed EXTERNAL LINK. But nOoOooOo JAMIE has to come and remove it. Man...u suck :-( ... afghanbuzz.com is starting to hate u... no treats for u :-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mqrasi (talk • contribs) 11:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In view of your many contributions to the Beauty article that includes Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg, you may wish to participate in the discussion on Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg at the admin noticeboard since listing the image on the Main Page may bring more traffic to the Beauty article. -- Jreferee t/c21:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away!
Joy
MarlithT/C hopes that you are joyful! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the Wikilove by melting the clouds of sin and sadness that weigh down someone else. Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I don't have time to check whether you removed all of the links I added last night. These are useful links for other people to continue refining the articles. They are real time reflections of the issues under discussion (while wikipedia article is static). On one hand, you have a flag citing no reference to these important topics. On the other hand, you don't let me add useful references. Not sure what you stand for.
Stevelihn 7 November 2007
Hello! Please elaborate on how these external links "violate" WP:EL. I have contributed to this article and feel stronlgy that links in question are beneficial to the readers and provide additional details to this very ambigious immigration topic. Also, would you agree to revert your edit for the duration of this discussion with a follow-up upon its conclusion? Please answer here. Maksdo16:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Are you overreacting? I am sorry but none of the links has any "heavy advertising" and only one is a commercial lawyer website Kolken & Kolken (which goes into great lengths to explain immigration concept and does not push any of their services onto a user). Are you just scratching the surface in your "link validity" judgement? Immihelp.com might seem to have some ads in the right pane but any "negative impact" on the reader is not material in comparison to all immigration information resourses this website has to offer. WP:EL is a recomendation, and doesn't restrict per se any links, even if for some editors they qualify as purely commercial or "with heavy advertisement". Policy should be applied with common sense. Reasonable number of external links that are legit, known, reputable and recognized by the immigration community is absolutely necessary to accompany this arrticle. Yes, Wikipedia is not a link directory but again, we are talking about only 8 links, not a hundred or thousand. I will appreciate your comments and hope you revise your position. Maksdo18:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will not revise my position. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, first and foremost. As such, it could use more content, not links. If someone wants to find immigration info, any search engine can provide that information. If you want curated links, Dmoz is the place for that. As far as using "common sense," I did leave a few links, even though they all violate WP:EL.
Yes, it is encyclopedia, but "internet encyclopedia" I must emphasize. It DOES need external links. More content? Well, lets wait for more content and then purge some external links. One is replacing the other, natural flow. The article as it is today lost some of its informational value after your purge.
...And what happened with your original claim about "...links either have heavy advertising or are otherwise commercial sites"? I thought I proved it wrong. Thank you. Maksdo18:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proved me wrong how? All of the links I removed had ads on them except the lawyer site, which is obviously commercial. I have an ad-blocker plugin that lists them for each site. PathtoUSA only had on ad link, but it has a "shopping" section. And where does it say that "An article needs links"? Articles need references from WP:Reliable sources, but not links. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I did: WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, #6 says: "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising". Not a case with any of these links. One or two unobtrusive banners. Not material. Shopping section? Have you ever followed that link? Innocent. Not material. One site is commercial. As long as it contibutes to further expand atricle's subject and educate the reader, let it be. Not material.
Yes, articles do need links. Remember, Wikipedia is a function of internet. I think of "External links" as "Further reading" section. Maksdo19:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, official links are fine (and the article in question has plenty of those). Can you find a policy that says articles require links? (Non-citation links)?OhNoitsJamieTalk19:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy. Why do you need a policy for something like this? Everything is much more easier. You include links when you believe in good faith they are useful, you don't include any links if there is no need for them. I am not sure why official links are fine. Actually, it is all the way around. In this example, non-government links carry much more knowledge, detailed information and are more accurate and up-to-date than government links. What policy? I think it is clearly stated that Wikipedia is a common effort and NOTHING is set in stone and one has to use common sense over ANY guideline (real name for WP:EL) or authority or policy. Because we all make mistakes and everything under this Moon changes. Maksdo19:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Crunk Energy Drink, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Crunk Energy Drink is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Crunk Energy Drink, please affix the template ?{{hangon}}? to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.CSDWarnBot11:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recently i put my site (afghanbuzz.com) in afghan related pages. My site has lots of stuff about afghans and afghanistan. And you removed me and warned me. Okay. Now, if you look at those pages, sites such as virtualafghans.com or eafghans.com are all linked. Absolutely anything afghan related have a virtualafghan link to it. Now Why and Who chooses what sites to have here. And Why such bias. Is it based on your mood? Is it based on how you feel? Or there are some set rules?. Please visit my site and their site. There is nothing that my site lacks then their site. Its as informative (INFACT MORE) as them.
Dearest Jamie,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words of strong support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow and Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.
Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.
October 2007
Please do not delete sourced content from articles, as you did to Chisso in this edit [1] The content you deleted is supported by the existing references and does not qualify as "random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information" that can be instantly deleted. Your edit has been reverted. Please consider using ?{{fact|date=}}? to tag content that may require an inline citation to meet WP:V. This gives other editors a chance to provide inline citations. I will be adding additional inline citations to Chisso. Feel free to discuss this on Talk:Chisso or here (I will watch your talk page). Thank you. - Neparis15:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is important for controversial or potentially controversial material to be sourced. At the time of your deletion, the article already had references both to Kaplan(2003) and to George(2001) with an inline citation (in the paragraph just before the two that you deleted) explicitly confirming the claims, such as the threatening activities of yakuza that were invited by the company. None of the claims are disputed by any WP:RS, and the claims were completely verifiable by these two references and the WP:EL to the corporation's website containing their 2004 accounts and their "historical overview". Do you have any references that dispute any of the facts stated in the article? - Neparis16:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing the material anymore. I checked out the references, and found a few others. The only discrepancy I saw was that some sources say it was Chisso factory workers, not yakuza, but that distinction may not be important in the larger context. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OH NO NOT THAT YOU FUCKING RETARD
banned from editing wikipedia.. oh my the horror.. how can such a thing happen.. what shall I possibly do.. maybe step outside into the fresh air like you should once in awhile you dumb ass think Im cool cause Im a pussy administrator that works for free moron. Go fuck your self pussy.. I have about 1000 other IP addresses and automated software to boot.. you want to play..tempt me bitch. You can erase all day.. i'll be at the beach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.46.31 (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what's to say we're not at the beach? Wi-Fi access at the Ritz-Carlton Key Biscayne extends all the way down to the water's edge. And if you put up the little flag beside your cabana, they'll bring you a mojito to sip while you're using your notebook to block trolls. (Yes, I'm a geek, but I'm a geek with class.) — Satori Son16:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.
I would like to know why you deleted a link to IndexUniverse.com's ETF Data Screener on the 12th of November. The ETF Data Screener is the most comprehensive, free and open ETF performance data tool available anywhere on the Internet. Professional and sophisticated retail investors use it to screen for and compare ETFs, Index Funds and their underlying Indexes.
Is there a policy that only corporate owned portals like Money.com or Yahoo.com can be linked to in the External Links?
Wow, thanks. Yes, I have been throwing myself back into contributing. But it's only because all of the really great encouragement I've gotten from everyone after the RFA. Thank you again, if you need anything you know where to find me. VanTuckyTalk21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the Crocs page protected?
"During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute." That's not an accusation, I just want to understand. SouperAwesome04:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting unsourced material has nothing to do with an edit war. A humor site claiming they affected a stock price does not constitute a reliable source. The numerous other sources cited (Forbes, Motley Fool, etc), all make it clear that the price change was related to the financial of the company. The page was protected for the same reason that a page might be protected if Colbert made a comment on his show that "everyone should change X article."
You know, you can change stock prices yourself. Here's how: (1) Create a blog (2) a day or two before a particular company is due to release an earnings announcement or guidance, say something really bad about the company in your blog (3) there's always a chance that the earnings announcement will be negative and the price will tank. If it does, claim that you caused it. (4) Make a graph, because graphs prove things. OhNoitsJamieTalk04:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering, but... was all that necessary? I didn't say anything about the sources or content or anything. I just noticed you reverted a few edits and then protected the page. I'm still learning about Wikipedia and my adopter has gone AWOL, so I was just curious. I'm glad you at least answered, but I didn't need all the extra sharpness. After reading up on everything I agree with you about the article, so it was really unnecessary. SouperAwesome15:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I received this message: "However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others". I am unsure why. I edited the page to correct non-factual information. Could you let me know how this is NOT improving the owrk of others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.8.189 (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... I see. That wasnt me! I have only had this internet connection for a few months. I went and read up on this and registered to avoid this kind of confusion in the future. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canopy2k (talk • contribs) 22:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
Howdy Ohnoitsjamie, thanks for participating in my request for adminship. I am happy to say it was successful, 55/0/0, and I am looking forward to getting to work. Thanks for your vote of confidence. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come. Suggestions and advice are always appreciated.
Thanks Jamie for ensuring that the wikipedia stays free of spam and any commercial promotions. I edited one of the pages on Network Marketing and provided an external link that points to a web-site which has information on how the industry works in general. But I own that site and I can see how it can be a conflict of interest for the wikipedia. However, I would like to point out that there are some external links that do point out to resources like a personally run web-site that promote negative information about the industry. The entire page on Network Marketing (MLM) seems like fear-mongering content page and hence I wanted to post some credible information on the entire industry. At my site, I am not promoting any company's compensation plan or product. The primary information source on the website are links to 2 movies that put the industry in the right perspective. What I would like to do is post links to the movies directly, rather than my personal website. Would that be all-right with the policies and can I be certain that the movie link will not be deleted. On clicking the link, users will be directly led to a 20 minute flash presentation that explains the network marketing industry as taught by Tim Sales and Dr. Charles King, who holds a Ph.D in business administration from Harvard school of business and teaches Network Marketing as a part of the MBA curriculum at University of Chicago at Illinois. There is no company promotion nor any compensation plan that it touches upon, just explains what are the components involved in Network Marketing as an industry and how they run. Waiting for you reply.--User_talk:Vishalhkd
I'd personally lean toward "no," but you're welcome suggest the direct links on the talk page for that article. I'll respect whatever consensus results from that. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your consideration. I would be glad if you can go to the my website [[2]] and view the presentation "Brilliant Compensation" and check out the presentation about the Network Marketing Industry. Once you have gone through it, you can let me know if a direct link to the presentation (and not to my website) would be useful to the users of wikipedia in exploring the industry. My intention is to help people with their research on any opportunity that they would like to evaluate. Thanks.Talk
Pee Wee Herman
Hi. I am trying to put together a checkuser request in relation to the "Pee Wee Herman" vandal, with a view to getting the underlying IPs blocked (I have range blocked some IPs used by the vandal(s) with limited success). I am putting together a list of sockpuppets and their edits here. As I see that you have been involved in dealing with this vandalism, I am letting you know and please feel free to contribute to the list. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have a question for you: is it deemed acceptable to have an external link to a site that uses Flash? Case and point... Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano. Ferrari uses Flash, and there is no way to link exactly to the 599 part on their site. I was going to remove some of the unnecessary links, replacing them with a link to Ferrari. I really appreciate your help. Zach463623:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just to let you know, an anonymous IP has been vandalizing the Lexus LS article, removing all references of the word "Ultra-luxury" when the references (#54 in particular) clearly supports that, and even cutting off sentences and title descriptions to do so. I have reverted this IP twice now. Thanks for any help stopping him. SynergyStar (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of Links you consider Spam
Hi There: I received the following email below from you in regards to links you consider spam. In the 2-3 areas where links where placed. They were placed next to other companies with similar products. So I'm not sure why those companies should be listed with their links and we are able to list ours. I've read the policies. So, if you are deleting ours then you need to delete our competitors as well. If you aren't familiar with them I'd be more than happy to delete them personally.
Dear Jamie,
I appreciate your vigilance over the addition of links to wikipedia. I was quite unsure before as to how the additions are being controlled, but was relieved on receiving your notification. Accordingly, I have read the policies and rules to adding external links. So now I am a little more sure on the correct way to add links.
Just to re-assure you on that end, I have been adding links to articles which were relevant to the main articles on wikipedia... you'd notice they are all links to articles on Indian or Asian art, and the articles that I am adding would most often be written by the famous art-historian Benoy K. Behl. I have not been doing this as promotional stuff for any commercial organization or for the art-hitorian or any other such personal interest. The links have been added by me, only for the purpose of relevant information that i think should be available to more people. I wish to pass on only valid information, and am stricly scared of misinformation. I trust wikipedia in that.
Cheers!
-Pooja —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poojakaul (talk • contribs) 12:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hey
it says i can link to wikiclassifieds, and that is exactly what i was doing, and yet, you keep reverting my changes, why?
Hi Ohnoitsjamie, regarding your removal [3] (diff) of external resources from the mentioned article, please have a look at my detailed case for having a limited number of other resources included in this article at the moment. At least for the time being. If things change after the election to the better, those links could probably be removed. I agree with you in general, but I think it is a bad idea to do this at the current time and in this particular case though. Thanks for your time and consideration. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 12:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. you have a very long and full talk page. I suggest to check out my modified version of the TALK PAGES archive template, which is optimized for user talk pages rather than generic to be used for any kind of talk pages. A simple to follow step-by-step guide to how to implement it was also provided. I hope you find this information useful. Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 12:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though your extensive contributions to Wikipedia are welcome, the links I removed (including yours) were all commercial (yours has quite a few advertisements, I should note). The immigration process may indeed be "broken," but it's not Wikipedia's job to "curate" the best "how-to" links, especially advert-heavy ones. Google in theory should give primacy to the most popular ones. I stand by my deletions. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quick response at the talk page :). I posted a question for you. What would your assessment of the reference be as RS, if I remove ALL ads from the page entirely? As I stated repeatedly, the intent of the page is not commercial, so if this is the minor change needed to shift the consideration as RS in favor to be accepted as such, so be it. The actual content and background should speak for itself, but I have no problem with a compromise to avoid misconceptions and wrong interpretations of intentions. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 19:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ads removed entirely. Comments added to discussion with focus on RS for the inclusion as "further resource" (and not as cited reference). --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left a small comment at the articles talk page. I wanted to post the following there as well, but realized that it is a bit too much off topic and better be posted at your personal talk page.
Quote: "I'm always suspicious when an editor intent on including links to their own site." ... Suspicion and scrutinizing is good, complete rejection just because is not, as everything that is absolute without exceptions. You don't know me yet, which is fine. You will notice that I am a heavy content producer on and off Wikipedia. I write a lot about the things I know and/or care about. Virtually always is the material serving educational purposes. Some of my off Wikipedia writing is original research, but many of it isn't. I understand what Wikipedia's purpose is and what its not. Unlike many writers am I not very protective of my work and don't mind if it is used and altered/improved by others (I lack the ego for that I guess). My drive and motivation is the education of people and the preservation of information, which is not the same as opinionating people, because that would require a specific agenda and goal outside the information itself. Such agenda also tends to cause the suppression of non-favorable information for the sake of pushing a specific point of view. I don't like that. I want that people make up their own mind. In order to ensure that people can make educated decisions and form an opinion for themselves is it necessary to provide them with as much factual correct information as possible. The fun thing is that by doing what I do is that I continue to learn new things about stuff myself, which impact my opinions about a subject as well. Anyhow, I can write what I want here, but I guess the things I did and do will reinforce what I just said. You can see for yourself. I am pretty open about who I am and what I do so it is not hard to check for yourself, if I mean what I said or if I am just "full of crap" (figure of speech). Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 12:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have written only a few things on Wikipedia.com and by the time I am able to merely check them, they are erased by you. Concerning the first article that I wrote, I immediately contacted the members who work for the Wikipedia webiste, because I have comments concerning some of their regulations. However, today I wrote a couple of sentences about domain names, in which a domainer, Andrew Miller, spoke to DNJournal about the selling of domain names. These sentences were cited and had no biases in them whatsoever. Why did you erase this, and why are you continuing to erase everything that I write on Wikipedia?
Please get back to me at your earliest convenience.
Because most of your contributions appears to be veiled advertisments for individuals or groups. Furthermore, the information from the edit in question is a bit out of date (2005). OhNoitsJamieTalk19:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this. How can a reference be out of date? If it's a fact, which it is, then it's not out of date at all. If you choose to support your editing in this way, then all documents, including the Constitution and anything else written before 2007 is out of date. Additionally, I feel that if you think that I am marketing a certain individual or group, then please erase all names and corporate references because that too is marketing. If you looked at the website that I cited, you would see that everything I wrote was facts. Nothing was biased. Moreover, if you looked at the individuals that I referred to, then you would see that they deserve to be on Wikipedia. In fact, I would appreciate it if you would look up the individuals I spoke about, so that you would have knowledge of them and see that everything I wrote was true, instead of simply assuming that what I wrote is made up or not worthy of public knowledge.
I am anxiously awaiting a response to this. Can you please explain to me why some people/corporations are allowed to have facts about them on this website, and others are not. Although I already sent a letter to the CEO of Wikipedia about my concerns, I would like to know what your response is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luvbug18 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am NOT Mr. Zapolin, however I am an enormous fan of his work and I admire both Mr. Zapolin and Mr. Miller because if you did research you would see that they are two brilliant men who deserve to be put on this website. I don't understand why you are having trouble with this. I have changed everything so that my work is cited, you see that everything I am writing is coming from outside sources. I feel like you have taken this too far, and that you are erasing people's work that they spend time on just to get your kicks. I am not accusing you of being a bad person, and I honestly do not want to have any problems with you because I am sure that you do feel very strongly about this website, and I respect you for that. With that said, I also get the feeling that you are starting to have a personal grudge against me and I am worried that you are trying to seek out my articles, simply to erase them. Internet real estate is a HUGE industry right now and it's only growing, especially since the Internet is considered to be the future of our nation's economy. Mr. Miller and Mr. Zapolin literally created the term 'internet real estate' and although YOU feel that my source is outdated, you can look them up on DNJournal's September 2005 issue where they held the cover story. In fact, let me give you the site DNJournal's Sept. 2005 Cover Issue. These two men have broken records regarding Internet real estate, and on top of that, they have worked with The Grateful Dead, Diana Ross, The New England Patriots, and Time Warner. Mr. Zapolin has co-written with Deepak Chopra, and became one of the youngest Vice Presidents (24-years-old) at the Investment Bank Bear Stearns in the 100+ years of the company's history. Mr. Zapolin and Mr. Miller each teach a class at Harvard Business School's Executive Program and Boston University's School of Communication, respectively, and they have gained more credibility to their names than most people regarding the development of the Internet. Moreover, Internet development is only one accomplishment they have on their resume; they were both VPs at Bear Stearns, and after leaving their positions there, they revolutionized television by creating Revenue Enhanced Programming, or REPs. They are both extremely accomplished, while maintaining a strong sense of community as seen by their need to donate time and money to various charities. Why shouldn't I be allowed to share their stories with the world? I look up to these two men because of their strong work ethic and innovative ideas; two qualities which have made them co-keynote speakers at the T.R.A.F.F.I.C. East conference October 18, 2005. If you don't believe me, then just look them up on Business Week, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Boston Business Journal, or really any major newspaper or business journal around.
Wikipedia is not a promotional tool (and also see WP:COI). Being affiliated with someone also counts as a conflict of interest. If you're so dead-set on mentioning them (in the context of a two-year old quote), take it to the talk page of the article. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is it wrong to mention pure facts about people? I am not saying that they are the best or even that their company is the best, I am merely mentioning the contributions that they have made. Luvbug1816:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if you could explain why you removed my external link in the DDD article? Before I adding the link, I did checked the rules and also saw other equivalent solutions (e.g. Spring) are listed in external links. Is DDD only about Java and CLR and not include C++? Thanks! kjin101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjin101 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, similar, the extenal link to a whitepaper on how to use DSL for application modeling based on IoC framework is also removed from the the DSL article. I see Martin Fowler's DSL and workbanch article and Jebbrains links were there. I would very appreciate your could give me an explaination. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjin101 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explaination. The rule says there is such potential but not necessary to be the case for all such kind of links. As suggested by the rule, I would appreciate you could read the white paper and let me know whether it is truely a interest confict. Let me know if you have any questions. Also, the "plain old C++ object" description in DDD article is obviously not an interest conflict. Because it is the only link to a wiki article. Concept of domain objects should not be limited to Java and CLR. Please also let me know which rule I should look into in this case. Thanks again. kjin101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjin101 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
industrial robot
First: you wrote: I'm not sure I understand the confusion regarding leaving me messages. You can either click "Edit this page", scroll down and leave a message, or edit the last section header and make a new section. Most talk pages (user or article) use the convention of leaving new messages at the bottom. - well for some reason when I tried to edit it did not show the whole page so I thought you had some special arrangement. Must have been a glitch because it works ok now! Sorry to intrude.
I have been maintaining industrial robot and put some of the content. I noticed you had removed a link in robot software by Kjin101 to some robot software development. I have no association with him/her so have no personal reaction but the link seemed ok to me. It was a novel new robot software development. What did you think was wrong with it?
Robotics1 (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the links because that user was canvassing them to multiple articles, which made it appear that they were using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but it didn't seem any worse than many other links and it seemed like a novel new software project. I was quite interested in it. Note: I have no axe to grind; just trying to understand the processes better. Robotics1 (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you to block Stick Figures indefinitly? I'm asking a serious question. I was just messing round. That should not mean I shouldn't be able to edit ever again. Also I wanted to know why you and others spend time reverting vandalism? I really would like to know. Do you get paid for it? Please answer, I really want to know. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.4.169 (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I regularly block accounts indefinitely when it's clear they are being used for vandalism only. I don't get paid. I just enjoy keeping crap out of Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Giant Pandas, it's generally accepted that Pandas will eat just about anything. There's nothing inaccurate about listing doughnuts as part of a Giant Pandas diet. Doughnuts are of Chinese origin - fried dough is a commonly coupled with porridge, and you would be hard pressed to deny that a Giant Panda would pass up a warm bowl of porridge accompanied by doughnuts. In light of your threats, I will withdraw my scholarship on Giant Pandas from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvollebregt (talk • contribs) 21:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop including Matthew Shepard from University of Wyoming. There is no consensus to include him, and the burden is on the proponent of information to show that it is accurate and conforms to wiki standards. By the way, who are you to post a warning on my talk page?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slyjackalope (talk • contribs) 01:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a warning to your talk page because there is no consensus to omit his entry. Furthermore, you are incorrect regarding your "burden is on the proponent" statement. If you continue to remove content without regard to consensus, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamieTalk01:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. Try to block me for keeping you from trashing my university's wiki page to further your agenda. Do you have any authority to do this? By the way, your little icon near the top of your page regarding your "strive[ing] to maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues" is laughable, as your obvious lack of neutrality on a controversial topic shows otherwise. I am not the only editor who thinks that Matthew Shepard should not be included on the University of Wyoming wiki page, as evidenced by the numerous discussion postings on its talk page over the past several years. Slyjackalope (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Block me for following wiki standards, especially when I have shown that inclusion of this material is not permissible, and I'll be referring you to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee for abusing your position as an "admin." You are clearly not following wiki standards, especially those on Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I have already suggested a means for resolving this dispute, namely that you refrain from including controversial material until you have a consenus with other "admins." What have you suggested as a means to resolve this dispute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slyjackalope (talk • contribs) 02:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How am I not following wiki standards? I fail to see how you've "shown that inclusion of this material is not permissible." First you say "you'll keep adding the material until someone in authority tells you not too." Then it becomes "until there's a consensus with other admins." You're grasping at straws. There is indeed a discussion on the talk page to resolve the dispute, and the page shows a clear consensus for listing Shepard as an alumni. He is an alumni, and he's notable, whether you like it or not. Feel free to file another RFC on the matter; I doubt the consensus will change. OhNoitsJamieTalk05:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-English ref
G'day Ohnoitsjamie! you removed what I wrote about the unique characteristics of Colorado and New Mexico's Spanish which I consider it's a good way to look inside their deep culture. I'm learning Spanish and if you want I can help you to understand the ref!! Well, anyway thanks for reverting me because you've made I signup here (despite I always liked it).--Knadaves (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used a translation tool to check it out....looks fine to me. I was unaware that non-English refs were acceptable, and the site in question doesn't appear to be commercial. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk01:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bwahahaha, experimentation
I noticed what a bad job I had done with your userpage so I tweaked it a bit. And then some more. I tried to maintain the same color scheme. I'd do the same to your talk page but I'm just checking in to see if you'd like anything else changed. And, of course, feel free to revert any changes I made if you don't like/want them. Cheers, Master of PuppetsCare to share?05:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Golf Database
Unsure why my site has been removed has it has no commercial content and pertains specifically to the subject matter. I do understand that you are God in such matters but hope you attempt to be fair. Sad to say other links of lesser quality do contain adverts so I am baffled as to why I am excluded.
While there is no commercial content, there is also little or no information offered which is not already on Wikipedia (we already have complete listings of majors winners). If more content was there, such as round-by-round scores and complete results (every golfer, not just the winner), it may be different. Lastly, the judgement of whether your site is helpful enough to include as a link is best done by other users, not yourself ;-) It is entirely possible there are other links which should be removed as well; which ones in particular did you see? These are added quite frequently and (like yours) are usually aggressively deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it wasn't deleted because of commercial content as I was informed - thought you lot were concerned with accuracy - no matter. The judgement of whether a site is helpful is down to each individual user and not just you. You only decide to deny users access to the site via wikipedia, obviously in a fairly arbitrary manner.
Which other sites? Thought that was your job. Too many other sites to list and you have completely missed the point of the site which offers a unique way of comparing major winners. You’re obviously too busy aggressively deleting links to actually notice the content on offer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miswod (talk • contribs) 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good; there was me thinking you were more concerned about users going of to more interesting sites! That's now three different reasons you have given for the deletion; any more to offer?
Shame I like a good debate, but it is difficult to argue with someone who doesn't see the need to connect the various statements made to support his case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.27.239 (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, but...
Thankyou, I have noticed you have reverted some idiots vandalism on wiki. However I noticed you also have a personal page on here, User:Ohnoitsjamie and this is against the rules of wiki? Any explination? It just seemed hypercritical.
Well I understand the basics, professionals contribute where knowledge is acceptable, however it still clearly states the rule I quoted. This isn't a moan, I'm generally a bit confused on this one. So do you have a real explination, e.g. Explaining "How wiki works". Thankyou for replying so efficiently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosedmonkey (talk • contribs) 11:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
68.38.15.69 is spamming false information about Serj Tankian on various pages. It has gone unnoticed for some time and thought I would contact an admin considering he has had 2 warnings about nonconstructive edits. I'll try to revert what he's done so far but I just thought I might let someone else know. Thanks!
NTFS (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not Everything on a "Blog" Site is Necessarily Blog Material
Regarding one of your recent deletions:
I guess that we just disagree on relevance. I will defer to your judgment. However, in the future, please consider that not every website with "blog" in its name is merely a daily personal missive about the writer's mood, the weather, their passionate love of Paris, and what they are planning to make for dinner. The "blog" page that I cited (www.survivalblog.com) is widely-read (with more than 52,000 weekly unique visitors in more than 50 countries) and is considered a technical reference by many shooting enthusiasts and preparedness-minded individuals. This blog's related static pages include several FAQs that LONG pre-date the advent of "blogs", and that even pre-date the Internet as we now know it. (Three of the FAQs authored by Rawles got their start on Usenet in the late 1980s, before "WWW" browsing was extant.)
IMHO, the static reference page in question--the reference page on whether or not certain types of ammunition are corrosively primed--provides valuable data for many shooters. But again, I am deferring to your judgment and won't attempt to re-post or argue this any further. Based on on your log, I can see that you have more experience about judging deletion criteria than I do.
-- Jeff Trasel, 1604 EST , 23 Dec. 2007
I got your message about the links "[Get Paid To website]". I wrote the article, and I based the information on it and the categories upon my website, [4]. The link is relevant, as it provides a sample of websites listed on the page. Please reply,
Lgolos (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious about why you removed the above external link. It appears that the external site has very legitimate and helpful reference to the original article about Chinese Cuisine. It also looks like the external site is commercial free (compared with other existing external links full of commercials) and a wiki. Hopefully, you can take a deeper look and apply your judgement more judiciously. 63.166.226.83 (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After spending some time checking the accuracy and fact, I found the article is a reliable source and a good complement to the current wp article. If you find anything on the article inaccurate and unreliable, please let everybody know, and we will happy to see it removed. For now I'm putting the link back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.64.4 (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of External link to Daily Dachund and Dog News
Hmmm. The Daily Dachshund and Dog News is indeed a blog but not a personal one. It's an aggregator that adds value. It covers Dachshund news, as it happens, and it is not, as an earlier Wikipedean suggested, just a Google feed. A cursory glance will show it has a lot to offer.
IN fact, this is the kind of news source that couldn't have existed before the web. And I think by removing the link you are depriving Dachshund lovers of a source of news they'd like. Instead of interpreting Wikipedia's rules in the most narrow minded way -- use of Flickr, Youtube and Ads do not automatically disqualify site nor does the fact that it's a blog -- why not ask yourself, "If I were someone looking for information on Dachshunds, would it help to know about this site?" If the answer is yes, please restore the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boisblaireau (talk • contribs) 00:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a link directory nor a vehicle for promoting sites with advertisements. 01:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there is no rule that Wikipedia can't link sites with advertisements. Otherwise it couldn't link the New York Times or any other major publication. If the site in question meets link criteria, advertisements are irrelevant.
So, please expain the criteria for deletion of this link.
Dont you think you should just keep your business on wikipedia's matters related to dogs and cats??? you seems to be specialised in it.... you are not specialised in everything... please be humble, and let the world evolve without feeling you should have your word to say on every matters. your attitude will lead us backward. you are too conservative.... smells like censorship to me.... What a brave new world! And the worst part of it is that i like cats and Lynch too!!!
Hi Jamie, You're a very efficient Wikipedia administrator. I just wanted to ask how i would attempt to get our website's artist interviews included in the external links of said artists? We're a small independent publisher aiming to spread the word about the artists we interview. You recently removed my attempts to link our video to relevant artists such as the Arcade Fire and Lil Jon. Both interviews are of a high quality and discuss information that is not included in the Wiki itself. I was under the impression that if our videos contain information that is not accessible in the wiki itself and are directly related to the artist they would therefore be valid under the Wikipedia guidelines.
Obviously we don't have the clout of someone such as a Rolling Stone (who are in the external links page of the arcade fire wiki) quite yet but i do feel that our content contributes to the environment and isn't purely about Spam - which we are also firmly against. Our website is www.pedestrian.tv and while there are some ads on the site - i feel that as the content of the interviews provides valuable insights that aren't available on the Wiki page the interviews may be allowable as external links?
If you have any tips on how we might be able to get our interviews incorporated into the external links of relevant Wikis i'd really appreciate the feedback.
Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle. If your site becomes notable enough, editors unaffiliated with your site will add the links independently. Please do not add links to your own site per WP:COI and WP:EL. Thanks, OhNoitsJamieTalk16:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, creating new accounts and pretending to be an independent contributor does not work either. Further attempts to do so will result in immediate blocking per WP:SOCK policies. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WHAT THE HELL? WHY'D YOU REVERT THE PAGE "CHRISTIANITY"?!?!
Prove the information to be false.
What suggest that Christ wasn't just a mentally ill man?
Who's to say that their God isn't just a lame excuse for an imaginary friend?
Well?
Prove me wrong.
Just wanted to let you know, I undid your block here. It was a simple misunderstanding: this user wasn't spamming, he was fixing broken links. Mangojuicetalk18:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the user was also adding new links to that site...looked like canvassing to me. I'm OK with the unblock, but I think they should be reblocked if they start canvassing again. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
US THE dominant economic, political, cultural, and military force
Ohnoitsjamie, your undo makes the article factually incorrect. The source (ref 10) is mainly on imperrialism an military power, for which I kept the article saying 'the largest', so far we agree. But you cannot state that the US is THE dominant economic or cultural force. The EU is a larger economical force (source:wikipedia EU article). 'The dominant cultural force' is a subjective term since assigning a weight to cultural aspects is very viewpoint dependent. The US culture has significant global influence, but so do other cultures (that are much older and therefore survivable, an important measure of 'cultural strength'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhesselb (talk • contribs) 10:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Allaboutboygeorge
This user has sent an email to the unblock list acknowledging that they now understand our spam policies and requesting an unblock. I'm inclined to do so, but will keep a close eye on them. I wanted to let you know as a courtesy. - Philippe | Talk22:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As the guy who edited most of that article .. and as someone who has been involved in the Indian quizzing scene for over a decade now, (1) The O'Brien brothers (Derek, Barry and Andy) and their father Neil are very notable. Derek and Barry are regular TV quizmasters. There have been a lot of extra edits - apparently by Andrew Scolt, who currently works for the commercial quiz organization firm the O'Briens run - to add a lot of advertising content to the article about various O'Brien quizzes, I have largely reverted these over the past few months. However, removing their names, and those of Harsha Bhogle (who is a prominent TV commentator for cricket matches, and a regular quizmaster on sports themed quizzes) as non notable - you might want to reconsider that. Remove Andrew Scolt's name with my blessing - his dad Alban Scolt was notable as one of the earliest members of the quizzing scene in India, he isnt all that notable. srs (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lets say it is catch 22. There is a very large, very active community that has been around for about 40+ years now, but the only mainstream "media" attention you might get is for TV quizzes or gameshows, quite a lot of which arent regarded as serious quizzing.. Derek O'Brien isnt respected as a quizzer or a good quizmaster to be frank, for all that he is notable. srs (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
various links from user JCSCEFA
I have spent the last 20 minutes trying to figure out how to "myTalk" I am not even sure if this is how to do it. I just saw the comments on the links and content I added on Friday and today. I am new to Wiki updates, and am sorry for the hassel. I see that you have deleted update where I added 'closed-end funds' to the 'exchange-traded funds' when CEFs are the investment company structure that ETFs were formed from. I will work to stay inside the guide lines of Wiki, George Scott, who has co-authored the only hard back book, (500 pages) on CEFS and it is used in gradute level finance classes, "Investing in CEFs: Finding Value and Building Wealth" is the editior and publisher of The Scott Letter, in print 1988-1996 and online since 2001. The newsletter is very well read and endourced by the industry. It has interviews with CEF fund managers and other pertinent articles. The only "marketing-esk notation" on the back page above our logo it simply says that we do mange money in 4 styles. (and it lists them). The Closed-End Fund Forum, is run by Capital Link, which is a shareholder relations comapany. They are private and In it to make money - how are we different. The reason I added the links to our website, is we do offer a valuable primary info service, which does expose people to our company. George was first a journalist and then a invemtment manager. Meybe the link needs to be reworded - in regrds to our links, I want people to know there is this information avialable to help them learn about the funds. In regards to the info I added on the ETF, MF, REIT and CEF pages that didnt 'pomote our newsletter or website' I believe the bulk of it was valuable. I do understand that being new I have some to learn. I am not one for spamming. It is a fact that there are two private firms (w/ websites) that are the "CEF Gurus". Tom Herzfeld in Miami, and us in Richmond, Va. The CEF association is also a great resource (and we have worked closley with them since their formation.) In conclusion, I will be more careful on what I type, but I feel the editor(s) have been a little overreaching in deleting worthwhile content and info. Thank you for your understanding.- John Cole Scott, CFS - (800) 356-3508 or jcs@cefadvisors.com.
So Jamie, what is wrong with the edit that I added? There is no advertising and I spent a lot of time developing the page that the link points too. I believe that there is very informative material at that link.
You've been warned about adding links to your own site numerous times. If you'd like to contribute to Wikipedia, try contributing contents, not links. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I don't think I'm doing this right...my comment became a link on your page. Help! :)
Hi.. I think I'm doing this right. Quick question - if a site has been written up in many papers and is a leading site in it's industry, but the site itself cannot write it's own page.. how the heck is a page going to be formed? :) Do we ask our members to write up a page on our behalf? Do we have to wait until someone gets around to it? Will the polar ice caps melt away and we pass the 1M member mark until we're finally added to the simple list called social networks? We have countless press clippings on our site, so we're a bit confused. If you could lend us some help or assistance that would be great. Thanks for listening.
Creating an article about your own site is discouraged per WP:COI, though I'm sure there are many articles on Wikipedia about sites/companies that were created by someone involved with the site/company. That said, I wasn't able to find any "press clippings." (News releases or other articles written by Bakespace do not qualify). Thanks, OhNoitsJamieTalk04:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stencil graffiti
Hello Jamie,
Regarding the removal of an external link at Stencil_graffiti. What is the difference between the already added links and the link I added today? I read the guidelines and by those same guidelines all the other external links should be removed as well. It's not my site, so it can't be considered as spam. I just thought it would add to the content.
Thanks for your note. I did not thinking adding a link to informational sites was a bad thing. I had run across a series of articles I thought would be useful at the site. Also I noticed the guineapigsclub.com link which is far more commercial and less informative about the GP than the ones I linked too at http://www.bestpetarticles.com/guinea-pigs/ You'll see they are unique and offer a lot of good information for those looking to care for a GP. I would think the gpclub site would be more in the lines to your stated policy than those of the site I recommended. Again thanks for the note, I'd like to see it change, but understand a site preference/resource conflict.
I don't much care for being accused of "blanking" or other vandalism, especially when non-notable content is removed from Wikipedia on an hourly basis. I had no idea that some people take so seriously content related to their little hobby, but harassing a disagreeing editor with "warnings" does not seem to be what Wikipedia is about. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Message from SEOlogy.co.il CEO
Dear Ohnoitsjamie,
My name is Natan Birenboim, I'm the CEO of SEOlogy.co.il, a leading white-hat SEO company in Israel which optimizes the websites of large, notable organizations in Israel and abroad.
A few days ago I've found out that most of our clients, including ourselves, are listed on Wikipedia's Blacklist. After investigating the issue, I have sadly realized that one of our employees abused Wikipedia by pushing links to his own private websites into several entries, ignoring Wikipedia's rules and warnings, disregarding our policies.
If this issue would have been brought to my attention, I would have made sure immediately that it doesn't happen again. But since I haven't personally gotten a warning, there was no way I could have known about the issue.
I have just fired the employee responsible for this disgrace. I request that our company's clients' legitimate websites be delisted from Wikipedia's blacklist immediately.
Here is the list of sites that I request to be delisted:
Hi - there's been a not-quite-open-and-fair dispute going on at the Pilates page regarding the External Links section, which you may want to take a look at, since part of it took up your time, unfortunately. You probably noticed that a link to a webpage at thinkpilates.com suddenly showed up earlier today on many unrelated Wikipedia pages, prompting your attention to remove them as spam, as indeed they were. But someone (or a group), it seems, is determined to keep that particular link off the Pilates page, without discussing, and also, by resorting to malicious impersonation, probably to ensure that that link and possibly the domain is blacklisted at WP. Please see Talk:Pilates#External_Links for the discussion. BTW, the domain is not mine, I simply found it as a useful source of information. Nonlinear149 (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must ask why you filed a Wikiquette alert about an editor that you were in a dispute with, and then blocked them. It would seem to me that this may constitute a breach of your responsibility as an administrator. At the very least, you should have involved an impartial administrator. Is there something I am missing here? I am especially concerned because this appears to be the second such block involving questionable circumstances on this editor. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't file any such alert. I commented on the alert. Paul repeatedly removed content from multiple pages. There were several editors objecting to the removal, and Paul failed to cite any policy for removing it. (One editor filed a mediation request, which Paul refused to particupate in). I stepped in and supported inclusion of the content. You should examine Paul's recent edits and discussion on the Wachovia Spectrum talk page before jumping to conclusions. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Drat! I was just coming back over to redact this ..... you are right, I went back and was rechecking the alert, and you sure as heck did not. I was 100% wrong on that.
But now that you mention it .... what I was seeing him doing was removing unrefenced material. From my reading policy, if it is unreferenced, doesn't that make it fair game for deletion (even if there are a lot of editors claiming it should be there)? Admittadly, he was myabe being a little aggressive, but I never saw the harm in being aggressive with editing. If he was removing referenced material, then it certainly should have been brought to the Talk Page regarding how legit the source was. Am I misinterpreting this? LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the material that he's removed was referenced. If his interest was really removing unreferenced material, there was plenty more material that could've been removed. Rather, it's obvious that he's on a campaign to remove any references to pro wrestling from articles, apparently because he doesn't like wrestling. I don't care for wrestling myself, but I acknowledge that it's a notable form of entertainment. I would object to wrestling (or any other entertainment/sport) having a lot of excess cruft on any given page, but that's certainly not the case at the Spectrum article. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And in conclusion, I think that pretty much answers all of the questions that I had ..... thank you for putting up with me and my doubts. Happy editing! LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was wondering if you would be willing to resolve a dispute on Lotus Esprit. The argument/disagreement arose over a series of external links that a user added, I removed, he added back in, I removed them again and started a discussion on the talk page of the article. The primary people involved are myself and Greglocock on the side of removing the links and DanBasterfield for keeping them. Dan does not appear to have any COI. The discussion has gone on for quite a while and has gotten too out of hand for any of us to decide; that is why we need a third party (and an administrator) to come in and resolve this dispute. If you would be willing to help us out, we would all appreciate it because, as I said, none of us have been able to come to a consensus.
Hi. You blocked 72.241.252.97 about an hour ago for vandalism. This IP doesn't seem to have edited lately and the last few days and the most recent edits seem to be in good faith. You don't appear to be editing right now so I've gone ahead and been bold and removed the block under the assumption that it was an accidental block and that you meant to hit a different IP. If I guessed wrong, please feel free to slap me with a wet WP:TROUT and reinstate the block. Thanks. --B (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the people who created this category intended it to include celebs who had been previously incarcerated and no longer are.
But that's not what it says. The label put on the Hilton article and a lot of others is "Incarcerated Celebrity", the normal meaning of which is a celebrity currently in jail.
Since this is not true of Ms Hilton (as of a few minutes ago; I checked the news) and possibly not of anyone else in the category either, it is a false label. IMO, it should not be there as it violates the BLP policy.
I agree that the category name is a little ambiguous...it might make more sense to split it into two categories; one for folks who have spent some time in jail (which would probably cover most of those in the category, as far as I can tell) and one for current. I'll look into that. Thanks, OhNoitsJamieTalk16:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think they mean that the word "Celebrity" is sort of redundant, since any subject with an article here should already be notable. I'm not sure if everyone considers "celebrity" to be synonymous with "notable person," though. Maybe "celebrity" could be replaced with "people" or "persons" to satisfy that quibble. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK
Fine then. ALright, now it's timme to kick some admin ass!!!
Please took article in the "puppy" this very sad picture. I can not, article "Puppy" partially protected from editing. File:Puppy at musorke.jpg, this photo. Poor dvornyazhka is needed in the article. Thank you. More interesting to me - how many times thy personal page has been corrupted Vandals paint? 92.113.135.214 (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting me!My RfA passed with a final tally of 5 neutrals, 1 oppose and 148 supports, a turnout I couldn't have dreamed of. I'm going to do everything I can to help out the community, help with sysop tasks, and of course, contribute to the encyclopedia. If you ever need a hand with something, feel free to give a shout! Cheers! Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!☺17:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
message
i'm sorry for vandalizing your page, i was just trying to do something cute for my gf and i's anniversary. didn't mean to disturb. won't happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggy3985 (talk • contribs) 22:36, February 10, 2008
Well, there's novel idea. Next time I need to celebrate someone's anniversary or birthday, maybe I'll vandalize Jimbo's page. :) Enigma (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Help me Help Wiki re:Smarthome page
Ohnoitsjaimie,
I am trying to update my newest hobby of home automation, and I put a page up, with content that I researched and am working on, but you took it down. I applaud your swiftness to keep the wiki clean, but on this one can you let me know what I did wrong, and I will address it. Thanks in advance for your time
Scrltspdr (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ohnoitsjaimie,
Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Pawlenty, you pulled my edit for citing blogs. Blogs are frequently the medium of choice for independent journalists. Douglas Hester is a local independent journalist, with a history of covering the "uncomfortable" cases, including Tim Pawlenty's broken campaign promises. Where do you draw the line to decide on reliability?
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
Joel Rosenberg is an established expert in the field whose work in the field has been published by reliable third-party publications. I don't know Douglas Hester's work as well, but the existence of two independent sources should tend to confirm the reliability of both.
I've started a discussion over the inclusion of this issue on the Talk:Tim Pawlenty page.
--jdege (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sending me the info. I think it's premature to revert it back, though, pending input from other users. It's always wise to be cautious when dealing with potential WP:BLP issues. Thanks, OhNoitsJamieTalk00:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've indef blocked obvious socks within seconds of their first edit. Other users manage to get a "bv" (blatant") and final warning within a few minutes. Hopefully, such swiftness illustrates the futility of the endeavor. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk02:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an obvious sock that was blocked 3 minutes after creation. That's probably the fastest in recent history that I can think of. In non-sock cases, I usually give at least two or three warnings (when it's blatant), unless the user starts making malicious moves or appears to be running a script (like the Squidward vandal, who at one time was able to use a script on open proxies to hit lots of pages quickly). In those cases, a quick block saves you from having to clean up a lot of crap. OhNoitsJamieTalk05:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Valentine's Day!
User:Wilhelmina Will has wished you a happy Valentine's day, and good luck in love and friendship!
OK so since the copyright is not a problem please restore the article, since it doesn't meet the criteria for copyvio speedy deletion. Then I'll be able to add some extra references, although there were at least three reliable sources (plus at least one wikilink from another page) which would tend to meet the notability requirements. Fnagaton15:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Sector 13 article has the wikilink meaning someone thought it notable enough to add the link, the ReplicaNet article was created sometime after that edit to add content for the link. Then there are these extra references such as this review which comes from GameDev which is a reliable source since it has editorial control of reviews. This PDF which lists ReplicaNet as one of the products used by Universal Combat A World Apart. Then in December 2004 ReplicaNet was a "frontline award finalist" in Game Developer (magazine) (subscription need) for which I can supply a photograph if you need it. From the same company that publishes the magazine is this reference and there are many more references from the same website in their news section. Then from Bungie's news section, the creators of Marathon and Halo 1/2/3, include ReplicaNet in this news article. All of these references could be internally wikilined back to their respective pages. These combined with the other references already in the article mean it passes WP:Notability. Fnagaton16:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for restoring it. As you suggest on my talk page I find time to flesh out the article a bit more and add some background about the subject. Fnagaton18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. You can check out Category:Game_engines for a list of other articles that might give you some ideas (though a brief survey I did suggest that some of these articles need works as well). M.U.G.E.N. appears to be reasonably developed (though possibly too long). OhNoitsJamieTalk18:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pulling at a thread often makes other threads unravel. Checking articles in the same category and finding others that need work is a lot like this. :) Fnagaton18:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
how should I learn the editing language on wikipedia?
Ohnoitsjamie how do I learn this editing language. I am only familiar so far by editing pages how to make a hyperlink to another article, and to do this
(see below where i did the underline thing on my username spider341)
spider341
but i dont know any more. Do you have any ideas on how I could learn. is it ok if I copy and paste stuff from people like i did with the heart from somebody's editing page?
Yes, but the band has a profile there. I have linked to said profile. Or, more correctly, a list with it at the top, as the profile doesn't have the genre right on it. Many bands have a MySpace profile linked, and they don't operate MySpace. Zazaban (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be blocked? What have I done? This is an edit dispute, not vandalism, I have not broken the 3RR. What could I be blocked for? Zazaban (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was deleted over a AFD for two years prior to the deletion. The article that the original AFD was about was about a non-notable court case involving the site. Frankly, I found the deletion to be absurd. Zazaban (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the band's official profile, so I fail to see how it is irrelevant. If we take it that directly, all links to MySpace on various band articles have to be deleted as well. Zazaban (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence that it's MySpace page was created by it either for that matter. Also, I disagree that the site is non-notable. The article for the site was determined to be okay to re-create if it's neutral and sourced. Zazaban (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If an article is created that survives AfD (which it would certainly be sent to), the link would be acceptable. As for now, there is no evidence that it is a notable site. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I didn't realize there were two vandals doing the same thing. I blocked one indef, and I see you've given the other a final warning (I also deleted the vandalism image). Thanks, OhNoitsJamieTalk19:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ref Rabbit link you reverted - previous edit added a link, which was discussed on the discussion page the same as mine was. Happy for link to be removed, so long as this policy is applied consistently.
Hello Jamie. Once again I contact you for advice. I am writing a new page on my grandfather, a pioneer of the Mexican military aviation; The article is not yet life in Wiki as am in the late research phase. And I have a few images I want to load to Wiki Commons but the first one I did got tagged for deletion says I am not providing the correct licence info; I released it to public domain which I think is fair. I read a lot of links related to it and am more confused than in the begining. The image in question is Image:C-3B Stearman.jpg and I have about 5 more to come of my grandfather. Some more Images of my grandfather I obtained throught the Mexican public archives, and Mexico's Department of Public information - National Defense. After hours trying to understand the licence policies, I am at loss of what need to be done, how to edit the file, and what to do with the next images I have to share. I will appreciate any help you may be kind to share.
Thanks,
BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you reverted [6] this section.I think too its not relevant but what are your thoughts about this argument, please help us with your knowledge.[7].Thank you.--Thispoems (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
