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.
Emailing me
I prefer to communicate via talk pages, but if there is an issue that you'd rather not discuss via talk, you may email me. If you email me about a block, it's not helpful to write, "help! I've been blocked!" Please include your username (if you have one) and/or the IP address that's been affected.
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. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism and insults left here will be recycled in the bit bucket. Remember: be nice!
Talk archives
Admin
Vandalism
Deletion
Talk
We would greatly appreciate you reconsidering your policy of cancelling links to Haystack.com. The Haystack.com pages for artists are managed and controlled by the artist and label, making them more akin to the artist's homepage than links to Myspace, Purevolume, etc.
In addition, revenue from those pages goes to the artists themselves, unlike most other social network destinations on the web. See RightsNow Media Royalty or articles published in Daily Candy or Digital Music Weblogs. In a culture where piracy is so difficult to directly combat, we hope that the revenue generated from these pages can help support record sales, not supplant it. Haystack is not seeking to profit off artist's content.
The artists and labels that have created these pages have asked us to help drive interest in their new releases, and Wikipedia is an important destination where the artists can reach the fanbases that are asking to hear their music.
While we understand the culture of Wikipedia is to be diligent on links that are deemed commercial spam and appreciate the importance of your role, we hope you can reconsider upon reflection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.233.148 (talk • contribs)
- If the links were added on an individual basis by the artist or fans, they probably would've been left. When one individual adds multiple links to the same site, it sets of the spam alarms. I looked at the page for Mew; it didn't seem to have anything that Mewsite and their MySpace page didn't already have. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely confused about the deletion. Unearth Travel is a creative commons travel wiki in a very similar vein to Wikitravel and World66, which as it happens has more free information than the named sites for some areas of the world. Surely if they are deemed appropriate entries then Unearth Travel should be? If the problem is that there is not enough information on the page, that can be recitified.
Thank you for your time —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PSBennett (talk • contribs).
- Unlike your site, Wikitravel is non-commercial (does not have ads, etc.) I haven't seen any link-campaigns related to World-66, but I would've deleted those as well. As mentioned in the spam warning, you are encouraged to add content to Wikipedia articles, not links. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ads have been taken off, I am proposing to add links where appropriate (as in there is more useful information for the user than Wikipedia currently has). We cannot transfer the information to the site as the licences are not the same. What do you think?
Thank you for reverting the personal attack on my talk page Ohnoitsjame. I appreciate it, thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem; I threw in an indefinite block for good measure. ;) OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi J, thanks for yanking the excess "fact" tags in this section. The new user tossed out a bunch because I put a tag on the last sentence in that section. The rest is widely accepted, but would you review that last one to see if it can stand on its own? Maybe I'm being too sensitive about what we can assert vs. what needs a cite. If you think it's ok, I'm good with it, it just seemed to fall into the latter category rather than the former. Thanks for your time either way : ) Doc Tropics 04:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding this cite tag; that's a tough one. I think the statement mostly holds true in the United States (though I've met very few parents who don't do the Santa thing for at least a little while) I have no idea how widespread it is in the rest of the world, or in real numbers in the US for that matter. I think a cite tag is appropriate, given that it's a shaky blanket/global statement to make. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clarifying. I don't want to harass the poor newbie too much, so I'll let things slide for awhile. I really do appreciate you taking the time to review such a minor detail. Happy editing : ) Doc Tropics 05:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie.You removed my external link on Panic Attacks. My site is not for any profit but has a talk community of over 250 people and we focus solely on panic attacks. There is a constant stream of information occurring there. Spam is FOR profit or FOR an agenda. This site is free information and aims to helps people suffering from panic attacks and give them detailed explanations from those that have had panic attacks. Thanks, Jeff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guymadison (talk • contribs).
- Hi Jeff. I took a closer look at your site. It seems to be non-profit. I reverted the links because it appeared that you immediately added the links to more than numerous articles (which made it appear to be a spamming campaign). If you re-add them to Panic disorder and Panic attack, I won't object, but those are probably the only articles that are highly relevant to the content. You could also post a query to the talk pages to those article asking others if they think the links are worth adding. Articles related to anxiety and depression can quickly accumlate way too many links, so we try to limit them to highly relevant and/or notable sources. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was a recent vandalism by anon ip 68.114.63.121 to Russia-Ukraine gas dispute; you gave this user a final warning on 1 December so I wanted to let you know about this rather than {test4} again. Vandalism evidence: [1]. Regards, --Riurik (discuss) 23:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the heads-up. IP is blocked 48 hours (second vandalism block). OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm not sure where to edit the bottom of your page, so I'll try here. I see that you have banned 64.53.4.254 in the past. Just a heads up that I removed some more vandalism by them. EOBeav 17:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
San Diego continues to be vandalized by the Anchorman reference several times a week. I applied for semi-protection a few weeks ago (see the talk page of the article) but it was taken down a week later, and this continues to be an ongoing problem. Can full protection or a longer semi-protection be reinstated that will last for a longer time period? I believe you know the standards for protection more then I do since you're an administrator, so you can make a wiser decision. Let me know what you do. --Nehrams2020 19:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the "Ron Burgundy" vandalism is annoying and somewhat persistent, but I don't think it's quite hit the level of persistence requiring protection. I escalate warnings to the Burgundy vandals quickly (I start with a "blatant" warning and go straight to a test 4 if they persist), or block vandalism only accounts. If the frequency of attemts increases, I'd be amenable to going with semi-protection. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We had a disagreement a few days ago about a few external links. Yet, I looked today in the "Cover Letter" section and there are two external links that are irrelevant, especially one with Adsense. This simply doesn't make sense in terms of what links are allowed and what links are disallowed. At this point, it seems that it is a subjective call. Do you know when there will be clear guidelines as to what external links are allowed? (I am aware of the current guidelines, but they are not that upfront.)
Also, these are the two external links:
I compare these links with this one for instance:
How are the two first links more relevant than the last one, which gives access to over 25 cover letter samples from professional writers?
And how about this link which gives access to close to 80 resume samples:
There seems to be no clearly defined criteria... But in terms of usefulness, it is arguable that:
and
provide useful examples of what otherwise would be abstract concepts.
NOTE: Nowhere on the Web will you see so many resume and cover letter samples from professional writers. Yes, these are good samples, not spam.
I look forward to your feedback. Again, let me be clear that I appreciate your commitment to Wikipedia, but we have different views about what's relevant or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workbloom (talk • contribs)
- Unfortunately, it's impossible to make a clear-cut, black-and-white policy regarding links. In many cases, an editor will propose the addition of a link on the article's talk page; a consensus will determine whether or not the link is included. In most cases, we err on the side of excluding links (the focus of Wikipedia should always be adding content, not links). Of the few you noted, I'd be included to leave the csuchico.edu link; I rarely remove links from educational institutions, non-profits, or government sources, as there's no commercial conflict-of-interest. Commercial links are accepted by editors in some instances if the links are from a very notable source and/or provide a extensive/high-quality content. Again, there is no litmus test for "high qualility/extensive"; decisions are made by individuals or by group consensus in the case of a disagreement.
- In your particular case, your username makes it obvious that you are some sort of representative from the site whose links you are trying to ad. WP:EL makes it clear that editors should not add links to their own sites.
- Keep in mind that if you see links that you feel violate WP:EL/WP:SPAM, you can delete them yourself. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you reverted some spam by 192.249.47.11, who tended to employ misleading edit summaries. He's posting under the name Parker_Curtis to spam SAT_calculator_program. Could you do something about him? Exeunt 01:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The same person is now under 71.165.157.97 . He's spamming the SAT_calculator_program article again with the same site. Would it be possible to block the HigherSAT.com URL from Wikipedia? Exeunt 22:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I escalated the warning to spam4 (since it's obviously a sockpuppet spammer). Oh, and some friendly advice; as tempting as it is to bite spammers, it's always best to remain civil in such matters. Keep up the good spam fighting work! Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Jamie, I have admired your work from the silent sections of the peanut gallery for awhile now ;), including your anti-spam efforts---which is why I'm here. I thought I'd ask for your input before I try one of the spam discussion pages: I'm troubled by the external link category called "Tourism" in geography related articles, especially in articles about popular tourist destinations. That category is a magnet for spam links, a virtual invitation to advertisers; it is attracting "info" from sites that exist primarily to generate commission for hotel referals or reservations, from tour operators and villa rental agencies (who often try to appear inconspicuous on Wikipedia by linking to their "General destination facts" section), from car rental places and general booking agents masquerading as "official travel guides", etc, etc. I've been working on one such tourist destination article for a while now, Nevis, trying to implement the standard format established by the other Caribbean island articles, while also attempting to get it in shape for the featured article selection process. But I'm really concerned about the standard established for the "External links" sections. The problem is not as acute in the Nevis article as it is in articles about larger and more popular island destinations, but it may only be a question of time. Right now, for example, there is a single-use account adding a personal site with a promotional description added (or search engine kick-line), that repeats the words "Nevis" and "guide" twice and adds the line "over 300 pages, 15 years in operation". Although a rather large portion of the site consists of paid advertisement for villa rentals, pictures of hotels, CD covers, guide books for sale through Amazondotcom, etc etc, along with rather large Google ad sections, the site has some merit as an essay-type, personal travel account by a frequent visitor to the island. Because of this, I only replaced the promotional description of the link when it first appeared, leaving the link itself. But the promotional kick-line keeps being reinserted by one user (1Nevis), a single use account that seems to exist only for the purpose of promoting this link, which finally led other editors to just remove the link altogether. And now it has become a revert war situation, which is making the article unstable. My point is: If the no-spam policy included a line about a Wikipedia preference for officially endorsed, government tourism department websites only in articles about popular tourist destinations, this problem would go away. But once an external link category called "Tourism" exists, as a separate entity from "Official links", it will continue to be seen as an open invitation to spam Wikipedia with pages about how to book a hotel and how to rent a car, etc. One side of this problem is instability: More aggresive site owners are deleting the other's links in order to be the one only one or the top link in the Tourism section. Another problem is that "Tourism" is such an open-ended category with the potential to grow out of control. What to do in the Nevis article and where to discuss suggested changes? Any suggestions? Best wishes, Pia 00:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I wouldn't think that a separate subsection for Tourism links would be appropriate, for the reasons you enumerate. I usually delete any commercial tourism links unless they are city/state-sponsored (or otherwise official)or links to the Wikitravel site. I'm not sure if there is an official policy on having a separate section for Tourism, but I think it would be safe to say that most of (if not all) of links like that would run afoul of WP:EL or WP:SPAM. I'll see if I can find any "official" guidelines on destination articles regarding that. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your position and I agree with your personal choice. I haven't been able to locate any established guidelines for external links on geography project pages, so perhaps the best way to approach the tourism spam problem is simply to raise the issue, including on the Caribbean project discussion board of course. The work by the project participants there to standardize the Caribbean articles has been very successful and has greatly improved a number of articles, so I think it's important not to make drastic changes to the categories they have established. Then again, it just doesn't seem fair to place so much on the shoulders of the spam patrollers, if a simple guideline could circumvent the spammers. Jamie, thanks for working so hard and being willing to help out with sticky issues. Much appreciated. Best wishes, Pia 23:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can
Template:PockKleanBotCleanup2
Geekler <small>[[Wikipedia:Segway Geeks|A Segway Geek</small>]] 21:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Web hosting service is getting hit with more sockpuppets. With that kind of diligence, maybe they are a top ISP. :) I'm reverting. Can you block a few? --EarthPerson 00:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I blocked a few. They're all from the same range, so I'll consider a range block if it continues (or maybe semi-protection). OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to suggest a permanent block of User:204.184.18.230, allowing logged-in edits only.
I'm a former student of this school district - This IP address is a NAT router that serves every Ladue school (high school, middle, elementary).
Judging from the edit history at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/204.184.18.230 - this IP has essentially never made a non-vandalizing edit.
crl620 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know that there's much precedence for perma-blocking IP addresses, especially one that serves multiple schools. On the other hand, I'm not averse to blocking school IPs for progressively longer intervals. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, I guess I misread the block page. Looks like 1-3 months is the going rate. Although, I guess I don't understand why an permanent anon-ban would be bad. It's unlikely this vandalism will stop but productive users could easily create an account and then edit (assuming anon-only still allows acct. creation). crl620 03:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can
Are you his brother? Why do you feel qualified to delete everything negative about him even though it is footnoted, sourced, and newsworthy? (multiple news stories at the time). You don't even give reasons for your maneuvers. You need to cease now. ColScott 02:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)ColScottColScott 02:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue has been discussed on the talk page; as mentioned there, the content violates WP:LIVING and none of the sources meet WP:Reliable sources standards. If you continue to add the content, you may be blocked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to Spam, rather list some very important external links to what is now a significant aspect of the Knights Ferry experience...rafting and camping. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JeffMGreen (talk • contribs) 03:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC).--JeffMGreen 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In removing some external links to GraceCentered.com pages reviewing movies you said, "Batman Begins, Shrek, The Incredibles, Friday Night Lights, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow don't seem to benefit from having a Christian review."
It would benefit Christians. Many Christians want to know if the movie is suitable for a Christian audience or if it's something they want to take their children to see. Many of the writers at Grace-Centered write for newspapers, have books that are best sellers and have Ph.Ds. Many Christians and non Christians value their viewpoints. Please respond. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leesw (talk • contribs) 16:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- I never said anything about Batman or Shrek. You are mistaking me with another editor. Regardless, see WP:EL and WP:SPAM for more info regarding external links. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie, I noticed that you recently restored a link here which had been removed by another editor. I had actually just removed the site in question from another article myself because it appears to have no encyclopaedic content at all (and it was recently added to a series of articles in a questionable manner). The site itself contains no sources or refs, it is a "free" website that anyone can create, and it seems to be an opinion/essay. Since you have more experience with these things, I naturally wonder if I'm missing something. If you review the site, do you think it actually merits inclusion in our articles? Since I have taken a lot of guidance from you in the past, I'd very much like to know your opinion. Doc Tropics 19:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That was a mistake (I thought my revert would "remove" the link rather than restore it). I agree that it's not appropriate, and I've reverted my reversion. Thanks for catching that! OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RESPONSE TO DISCUSSION ========================================================================================
I posted 2 links to this site. One of which I removed myself. The second was removed by you.
As far as your discussion.
(1) The site is non-commercial
(2) It does not sell anything
(3) It does provide more content to the subject
(4) It does cite sources, in fact I counted 69 source references in the article
(5) It is not a spam site
(6) It contains an opinion you probably disagree with and prefer to censor
(7) That is all the more reason it should be listed.
I will not repost the link, however, your objection to this link is hypocritical. It is certianly more more factually oriented than this one:
http://www.citybeat.com/archives/1996/issue304/cover1.html
PS. I think you have done the reading public a great disservice. I will leave it to you to reconsider your decision. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seventhcroak (talk • contribs).
- Thanks for agreeing not to repost the links. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refinance Article
Good afternoon,
I have some questions regarding the refinance article that I just finished editting, and had all the changes reverted on. I understand your position in regards to spam links. I have fully familiarized myself with the spam policy, and I am fully confident that the changes I made, which you reverted, not only were not spam, but actually REMOVED spam from the article.
If you'll check the article now, there are two reference links to a site called "thetruthaboutmortgage.com" Go to that site. It is not an informational ressource about refinance, and the references aren't even properly formatted according to Wikipedia standards. In my changes, I removed those links, and replaced them with external links to non-commercial websites of purely informational nature such as HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) and the Department of Veterans Affairs. These sites are purely informational, an are definitionally not spam, as they are government websites created specifically to provide information on refinance. I also added reference links to the sites I used for references when writing the article in the first place, as I believe I am not only supposed to but required to do.
I forgot to sign in when I made these changes today, but I am the person who originally re-wrote the entire article about a month ago. At that time, I added reference links to the pages I had used as reference when re-writing it. Another moderator, whose name I have since forgotten (but who should appear on the page's history), informed me that I did not cite sufficiently authoritative websites in generating these references, and SPECIFICALLY asked me to locate government-run websites such as HUD or the VA and use THOSE as references. I only just found the time to do so, only to have my additions instantly removed for the very same reason I was told to put them up in the first place, and actual SPAM LINKS put in their place. Imagine my surprise.
I appreciate that you have to remain vigilant on spam matters, as I can only imagine the quantity of spam you receive, but I am at a loss here. In obeying the specific requests of one moderator, I have apparently run afoul of another, and even my removal of spam links has been reverted. Every link I placed on that site was informational-only, mostly to .gov and .org websites. The only .com reference link I used was to a consumer advocacy site I often consult, which does not sell anything even remotely related to refinancing. In fact the article itself was a detailed discussion of the pros and cons associated with this sort of thing. If the original links currently on the page are not spam, then I can't conceive of how HUD public service articles and risk assessments are.
I respectfully request that you reconsider your decision on this matter. Please follow the links you deleted, and the ones you reverted the page to, and tell me where you find the spam. Don't simply delete changes because you see an external link has appeared, especially if the changes are to delete spam links and replace them with informational ones.
I'm sorry this is so long, but I've put a lot of time and work into this article (you should have seen how it was before I showed up), and to have these changes revoked in favor of a spam site is disheartening to say the least.
