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 do not respond to emails regarding link deletions and other issues that should be discussed on your userpage or the article 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, Wikipedia external link guidelines and conflict-of-interest 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.
Permissions
Hi Ohnoitsjamie, thank you for pointing this out. I had forgotten that I had declined a prior permissions request from Theworldgymnast1, although the name did seem familiar. Thanks again. Acalamari11:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for keeping up with the volume of requests on the permissions page. Not sure what "vandalism wars" Theworldgymnast1 is talking about...I didn't see any in a cursory inspection of their diffs. OhNoitsJamieTalk13:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Meetup in San Diego?
Hi Ohnoitsjamie, I am Sebastian Wallroth from Berlin, Germany, board member of Wikimedia Deutschland. I am visiting San Diego from February 3rd to February 8th, happily invited to a wedding. I would like to meet Wikipedians. Is there a chance for a Wiki Meetup in San Diego during the first week in February? --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Paul Allender may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Allender was involved with the formation of a new project named "White Empress." Mary Zimmer (formerly of [[Luna Mortis]]} is a vocalist with the new project. According to Zimmer: {{quotation|Paul and I actually have a
I am working on inserting references. Please give me some time. I am new and learning. However edits I made are with sound basis of historical knowledge and reading. Please stop undoing changes unless you really know this historical event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshal1981 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for keeping watch on Chennai article. You have recently removed the statement "Chennai is the cultural capital of India" (rightly so). Originally it was written as "cultural capital of South India" (with source). Seems somebody has removed during the source. I will try to find the source again. The discussion related to this can be found here. Happy editing :).--Challengethelimits (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steve Ballmer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi Jamie; the message you sent me for removing an edit to this page indicated that you thought my edit was a "test"? It was not intended to be a "test" edit -- I cited evidence from a TED talk to show a connection between the allegory of the cave, education, and game-based learning. Also, from my research on the standards for notability, I'm wondering why "non-noteable" was a reason for deleting the citation since notability guidelines do not apply to article content according to the official guidelines. I'd think a TED talk constitutes some merit for inclusion, no? Kballestrini (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having been on a TED talk does not automatically confer notability. We're not going to list everyone who's ever alluded to the Allegory of the Cave for obvious reasons. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize it's not an allusion, but a core analysis of Plato's view on education and how it applies to current research in game-based learning, right? Did you watch the talk? Kballestrini (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what the talk is about. The individual is not notable, period. I'm not discussing it further. Make a blog about it if you think it's so important. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removing deck
Hi Jamie - just wanted to see why the link to the deck on funnel optimization was removed. The deck was relevant to that section of the article (the article discusses how growth hacking involves each step of the customer funnel for a product, which is the whole purpose of the deck). The deck has been extremely well received by the community - it has over 26k views on slideshare, and Sean Ellis (who coined the term 'growth hacking' and is referenced in the article) called it "one of the best decks in growth that I've ever seen." The deck is a shortened version of a class I teach at Northwestern's MBA program. If I formatted it incorrectly I'd be happy to modify it. let me know your thoughts! --Intentionally (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When a user signs up for Wikipedia for the sole purpose of adding an external link with no content, it smells very spammy, hence the revert. Given your username and the link, you'll probably also want to read WP:COI. OhNoitsJamieTalk03:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understood - I signed up with Wikipedia on 10/22/12 (can send the relevant email if that helps.) I get COI - this deck has been up for almost a year. Didn't think it warranted inclusion until Sean Ellis tweeted about it (as did growthhacker.tv who's also referenced here. If you don't think it warrants inclusion I understand, but I do think it's in the spirit of the topic and that line specifically, and the community itself was very receptive to it. --Intentionally (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the edits from the time it was first semi-protected on January 7 to the time you fully protected it on January 11, I can't see why you saw the need to raise the protection level.
The protection will expire on Saturday, so there's no need to un-protect it. But if the vandals come back and if they are not auto-confirmed or abusing edit summaries, consider using just semi-protection. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I upped it to full because after several autoconfirmed meatpuppets got through (Hoppus had invited his Twitter followers to modify his Wiki article with various crap). OhNoitsJamieTalk19:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I guess I'm not seeing anything. The only non-IP editor besides you between the time you applied the 3-day semi at 19:01 7 January and the time you re-impposed it as full protection at 10:08 11 January was Aqlpswkodejifrhugty, which was a good anti-vandal edit. Was this just a preventative measure to prevent vandalism by known auto-confirmed accounts that hadn't edited since 19:01 7 January? If so, then thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Could you please send me the text of my deleted article SMX mixer calculator? I would like to improve it and remove any part admins determine as promotional. I gave several points in the talk page to explain that the article provides scientific and engineering knowledge of both SMX mixer and the calculator. I would like to hear some feedback from admins. Or can I put the article in my user space and improve it with the help of admins? Thank you! --Chenyiaero (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. I think I did not do sufficient work to prove that SMX mixer (and the calculator) is notable. I will provide more independent evidence to prove that SMX mixer is an important type of static mixer, and the fluid dynamic problem is largely interested. Could you please send me the original text so that I can improve it? I just hope the door is not closed. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chenyiaero (talk • contribs) 00:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I know that these states are sometimes classified as Northeastern States. But which are classified as Southern States by United States Census Bureau and Northeastern United States category already within Mid-Atlantic category so I was deleted it. If my edit made a problem, I apologise for it. --Allytoon (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Wikipedia's categorization is constrained by US Censur bureau's categorization. It makes more sense to categorize states as belonging to a region if there is a reasonable number of sources which categorize it as part of that region, as is the case here. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, I notice you deleted several pages I'd created within a few minutes of each other. From my understanding, deletion is intended to be a process. Is it possible for me to see the discussion of those pages and why they were deleted? I can see why a few of them weren't considered encyclopedic (they were new), but a few of them could have curated and merged with existing articles as variations of existing necktie knots. Now that the content is gone, I don't even have the chance to archive it for future improvement, which I'm sure you understand is disappointing. :)
Wikipedia is not free webhosting. The articles you created about knots clearly fall under WP:CSD#A11. The article about yourself should've been speedied, but I sent it to AfD to be sure. OhNoitsJamieTalk23:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Could you please respond to the other elements of the question I posed? If I were to include the variations on the Half-Windsor, Full-windsor and Onassis knots, would that qualify as encyclopedic? I have some other knots which I was working on, existing knots with longer histories, and I'd like to have some measure of confidence they'll not be summarily deleted so quickly.
Okay... So is this the wrong forum to address my other questions? I apologize if I'm addressing these in the wrong place, but I'm obviously a new user and I'd love a little more helpful guidance. Since you're the person who did the deleting/recommending, I'd love it if you could be a little more helpful instead of blowing me off like this. If not, please direct me to a person who can be more helpful. Directing to a page that makes sense to you isn't necessarily helpful to me. I'm here to learn. Thanks! Irelocus (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pages like WP:NOR exist so new users can learn how Wikipedia works. If you read that policy, along with WP:RS, you should be able to understand why articles about necktie knots you made up do not belong in Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I was trying to have a conversation, as I learn better through interaction than reading alone. I can see I'm barking up the wrong tree here. Again, sorry to bother you. Irelocus (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We need to talk about renaming of the Bangalore page to Bengaluru. Bengaluru is the official name of Bangalore. I edited this page to change the words in the page content from Bangalore to Bengaluru several times but it has been reverted. Hence I want to discuss about this and come to a conclusion regarding the title of the page. I am contesting that it should be named Bengaluru, just like other city pages have been renamed like Mumbai from Bombay, Kolkatta from Calcutta, Chennai from Madras.
Hi Jaimie - I'm the author of the Richard Strozzi-Heckler article and I'm confused by the afd tag you placed on it. 9 of the 10 references I created the article with fall into the category of 3rd party reliable sources as I understand it. Would you help me understand your reasoning? SympatheticResonance (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that you are the one disputing it. All of sources except for number 8, which refers to his methodology itself, are published by 3rd party sources, almost all in print, and many from major publishers. You specifically cite a lack of reliable 3rd party sources. SympatheticResonance (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO requires non-trivial coverage from notable 3rd party sources. Refs to a bunch of books that aren't accessible online aren't helpful. It doesn't matter if I'm the only one who's disputed it as of yet. If I send it to AfD, it will be up to the community to judge if he is notable. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these books' entries on Strozzi-Heckler are available - free online via Google Books previews. The WSJ journal article is linked at it's reference, the only picture in the article is of him and is specifically about doing the work he is notable for with the US Marine Corp.SympatheticResonance (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't my intention to remove the "dead link," as I didn't see that in the diff; my intention was to remove inappropriate wikilinking of Google added by the previous user. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Go to your "preferences" link (probably in the upper right corner), and add the markup in the "Signature" box; be sure to check the box titled "Treat as Wiki markup." The markup I use, as an example, is:
I've seen that you've recently deleted a link to http://www.golfboo.com/ in Wikipedia's Golf page. I've added this link because I think it's an excellent resource to all those golf lovers. I don't have any comercial relation with Golfboo, indeed, I only discovered it two months ago, and since then, I've been looking into its internal pages in order to find valuable info about golf courses around world. Moreover, as fas as I know, Golfboo is the first search engine especialized on golf, and it bases its search results on users reviews. Of course, you can do what you want, but I think this link can help golf lovers a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio redondo (talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! Thanks for your comments on Eva Haller... I've added a bit more to the discussion page and the article that might help it. Also - it has been a week since the discussion was extended... which is when I thought a decision would be made? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Many thanks, United191 (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was already relisted for one week (8 days since last relist) and there have been three more substantive votes since then (including yours)... when should I expect to hear the result or relist? Many thanks! United191 (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know; there's not a definitely answer to that. Most likely it will get closed within the week I'd imagine. I'm not going to close it because I participated in it. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
drinkreader(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has shown over a long period of time that he is constitutionally unsuited to Wikipedia. He does not understand that his self-promotion is self-promotion, nor does he understand fundamental policies on verifiability and sourcing. I really think we need to ban him. Since he's been anonymous until now, I think we should use "drinkreader" as the identifying label (his real name is trivially inferred, and I know it from OTRS tickets, but BLP is very important). Guy (Help!) 10:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the next block should be indefinite; I didn't delve too deeply into his history, I just saw obvious block evasion. If you'd rather the block be extended to indefinite now, I'm OK with that. Regarding the other matter; you just want to change the heading and tags so that the "drinksreader" account is labeled as sockmaster? OhNoitsJamieTalk14:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Also check Cullen (surname), it is as worse. Because the IP inserts unbalanced and non-reliable material on main page. About 3 other editors reverted him, but I can't do anything for another 10 hours. I had my 2 reverts. OccultZone (Talk) 16:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Similar case can be seen here on Sati (practice), since[3], editor focuses on a particular information and changes to apologetic version. After that, makes a new account for removing the similar information[4], and starts edit warring [5], [6], logs out and place back with ip[7], then again logs in with account[8], after that he makes a new account[9], for promoting apologetic version, while removing sourced content. After that, this page underwent 100s of edits, became 2 times larger, so this user got back with new WP:SPA this time, [10], he inserted whole mess and misuse of source back to its place[11], and then expands it from new WP:SPA[12]. After I discussed about it with other active editor who is editing this page for more than a month, we figured that it is misuse of source, because he won't present the whole conclusion, he doesn't add whole supposed argument either. But he inserted his whole information back, while removing the information he don't like[13], his explanation for removal is "Not for lead, ungrammatical", although he has no sources for his information. Here he is supporting the edits of the above SPA[14], while thrashing the accessible and multiple reliable sources provided by me and others.
He hasn't collaborated, only opposed what he don't like through edit warring, and making WP:SPA, if you see his conversation, it is clear that he cannot be 1 - 2 months old editor, but it is obvious that he create these accounts only for thrashing these pages. He has probably carried out same edits on other pages too, for example Women in Hinduism[15], you have edited this page before, you may have countered. And this account also seems to be sock of this user. He will probably edit war or make new accounts for inserting same information. Checking the contribution history of these accounts, they are limited with one page. Noting WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY, it seems suspicious to me. OccultZone (Talk) 05:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I checked, being a "lifelong resident" is not one of our WP:BIO notability criteria. I suppose we should list all life-long residents in every community article? Good thing hard drive storage is cheap. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock Garr1984
You don't know me, but I am Garr1984's mother. He understands what he did wrong, vandalizing pages with death hoaxes. I have read your requirements for successful unblock requests, and they stipulate the person should understand what they did wrong, and why it was wrong, and resolve not to do it again. He has done all these things and yet you administrators won't hold to your end of the requirement in his case. This sure sounds like a punitive block to me, which, as I understand it, Punitive blocks are forbidden according to the rules.68.118.214.20 (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to the Wikipedia community and guessing I missed something when I updated the Lake Howell High School page. Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, but will you please let me know what I overlooked and how I can correct it? Thank you for your help.
I don't want all of that on my talk page. If you are so convinced that this individual is notable, create an article about them first. Be advised that if WP:BIO notability criteria is not clear (i.e. multiple third-party reliable sources with 'non-trivial' coverage i.e., passing mention). If other editors including myself don't feel that notability is established, the article may then be sent to WP:AFD. OhNoitsJamieTalk13:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You detected my links as spam though I didn't really mean to SPAM with them
I'm just wondering what link seemed to be SPAM. Links to Quandl remains in External links parts, though links to Knoema were removed. Though we provide users with free statistical information, open and public data which could be useful to your users.
I'm sorry if I violated any rules but seems like my links were detected as SPAM by mistake. Hopefully we can discuss it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Olga sdn (talk • contribs)
As has already been stated in the warnings on your talk page, we don't permit mass canvassing of any site, regardless of perceived merit. There's nothing further to discuss. OhNoitsJamieTalk13:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the answer. Could I add just a couple of links to the most useful content then? Not the whole bunch of them. Or my account will be blocked then?
