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]
My Facts
OMFG EMO!!!1!!!1!
Dear user 'Ohnoitsjamie,'
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]
