User talk:CoJaBo

Welcome

Hello CoJaBo! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Attribution • Neutral point of view • Notability Conflict of interest • Autobiography Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Citing sources • Footnotes Image use policy • Copyrights • Fair use External links • Spam • Vandalism Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry What Wikipedia is not • Deletion policy

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The "perfect" article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your ANI report

I've rangeblocked 201.9.0.0/16 for 1 week. Its a big IP range of a Brazilian ISP, so I did not block account creation to avoid excess collateral damage. Be on the lookout for possible similar vandalism from new logged in users. If that occurs or vandalism persists from more IPs or after the block expires, contact me. You may want to tell this to other users involved in reverting vandalism on those articles. Mr.Z-man 22:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar! You reverted edits in FOP TV movies (such as Channel Chasers) and warning the people!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting edits. I believe you should have this barnstar as a hard day's work. September 29, 2007

Linkkspamming

Ok. I just looked through the site and found some nice info (in English) in it. Now when I looked at the contributor's edits, I agree with you. Cheers. --Laveol ^T 21:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2007

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -jj137^{Talk • Contribs} 21:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here you said I made a test edit, however I was actually reverting a test edit... Huh?

CoJaBo 21:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh I hate when that happens. Terribly sorry about the misunderstanding! (You can remove that earlier message I gave you) -jj137^{Talk • Contribs} 21:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rating sites

I can see you're the latest to try to clean up the twin cesspits that are Rating sites & Hot or not (check the edit histories for an illustrious list of previous editors who've given up on those articles as a bad job) - I'd strongly suggest periodically pruning back the spamfarms, which grow on this articles like weeds. (Personally, I'd say the only sites significant enough to warrant their own links are RateMyFace & Hot or Not.) — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have them on my watchlist, and I revert any edit that only adds a link (which seems to be the vast majority of them...). I've already removed several sites that have more ads than content. I haven't checked to see if the remaining links are notable (someone probably should), but at least it isn't growing completely out of control. CoJaBo 18:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers...

Thanks for the revert. I think a visit to AIV is looming.. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plovdiv - Granada of the East

Moved to Talk:Plovdiv#External_Link_-_Plovdiv_-_Granada_of_the_East

My Talk Page

Thanks for reverting that vandalism on my talk page... I guess that guy was mad about me reverting his vandalism... Cryptk (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MCRFan link

The changes made were to benefit The Umbrella Academy. And to make it available online for all the Internet users. Don't you want more readers for The Umbrella Academy ? I trust that you will understand me and add this site: (removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.43.208.43 (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I removed the link because it was being aggressively promoted on Wikipedia (repeatedly posting far more links than is reasonable, even replacing links to other sites at times), and because the content it links to is in violation of copyright.

Please do not add the links again, or the site may be blocked from being added to Wikipedia.

--CoJaBo (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi CoJoBo sorry about my confusion with moving pages, I was trying to move it now i have created a big mess! i am so sorry I did not do this as an act of vandalism. User:Surfer-boy94 (talk) 01:23 UTC March 24,2008

Thanks

Spassiba, Tovarisch!

thank yu very much for your help with me. I aprecciate it very much greatly.

TK002 (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for removing the vandalism to my talk pages.jeanne (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ningombam Bupenda Meitei

Donizo (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC) hi Cojobo , Avoided suggested me to talk to u to remove the tag which has been put by u as I have given more references to my article. Looking forward to ur help.ThanksDonizo (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me.--CoJaBo (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

vintagesleaze.blogspot

Hi CoJoBo The Humorama Link you edited incorrectly links to a highly regarded historical study of the Humorama line of magazines published by Abe Goodman, and it is the ONLY legitimate text based site on the series. It is NOT spam. The editor of the site is Jim Linderman, profiled in the New York Times (a full page in the Sunday Art section)http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/arts/design/jim-linderman-collects-it-all-vintage-sleaze-to-baptism-photos.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Thus anyone who is interested the publisher currently has no better place to look than (link removed). Additionally, a site which WAS spam called humorama WAS removed. Reinstate. Unlikely you will FIND a better source Questions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.153.121 (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further suggest reinstate (your own undo) for following by Jim Linderman. NOT spam, legitimate and recoganized as such for writing on unknown, obscure material by above (NYT, etc.) Sources on author/editor http://www.dulltooldimbulb.com/page05.html THANK YOU COJOBO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.153.121 (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You added the same links to 7 or so articles; your edits consist solely of adding these same links, including in at least one case where they were previously removed. Furthermore, your edits were labeled as "fixed broken link" or "fixed typo" when they were really adding links. This looked like spam, so I labeled it as such. Regardless, per WP:RS, blogs are not generally considered reputable sources anyway, even if written by someone who was once mentioned in a newspaper.--CoJaBo (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, in each and every case, the links were written by a reconized authority with a Masters degree in Library Science. Spam? NO. Authority? Yes. When linking to obscure material, which wiki should do or be redundant...one might consider legitimate sources from slightly to the outside of the canon and those CLEARLY NOT spam. I know the difference between sources of value, and in these cases the ONLY sources available...and spam. Suggest you be slightly more attentive to sources you consider appropriate cojobo. Thank you. Furthermore, "once" mentioned in a Newspaper is far from correct. This is not flame. It is fact. If you choose to label or edit "spam" (or accuse a scholar of it) know what spam is. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.153.121 (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't that the author of the source is or is not educated; the issue isn't even necessarily whether or not the links are spam or if you do or don't have a conflict of interest in adding them, even though thats what drew my attention in the first place. The issue is that, in general, blogs are not considered reliable sources. If the author of those blogs really is a "recognized authority" on the topic, the solution is pretty simple — cite something he published that is a reliable source. Note that these are Wikipedia's guidelines, not ones I made up arbitrarily; for more information on them, read the preceding links.--CoJaBo (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operative phrase is "IN GENERAL" blogs are not considered reliable sources. Fair enough Cojoabo, and no problem at all. Just wanted to slow you down a bit before you again label any contributor, any source or any documentation (with or without the expected scrutiny from Wikipedia) as spam. Thank you very much for the dialog and responses.