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]
No worries, it takes time to learn the ropes. If you decide to create the article, WP:BIO has a subsection for entertainers. Do keep in mind that not everyone who is involved with the production of a notable television show or movie is automatically notable themselves. There are many folks who would be considered to be well-accomplished in their field, but still may not meet our WP:BIO notability criteria. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk15:54, 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olga sdn (talk • contribs) 14:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You posted a warning at User_talk:Dotarray. Every single edit this account has ever done over the years is to spam links to gamepron and now playerattack. Since they have no purpose other than spamming, and their history over the years shows they aren't going to change despite repeated warnings from people, why not just block them? DreamFocus10:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Out of habit I try to give at least one warning before blocking (unless an SPA is on a serious vandalism spree). At this point, the user will either disappear, or respam (in which case I'll block on site). I'll also be watching for a resurgence of both links, and am prepared to blacklist as well. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk14:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess that's that then. I fully expect another sock to appear in the next couple of days though once the unblock request is officially denied. Indrian (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I readded Lil B to the list on Outsider music because I feel he fits the description provided by the article (niche market, cult following, etc). Feel free to revert if you want to, just giving you a heads up. felt_friend18:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How was a Lucerne, or even a Park Avenue not a replacement for the Roadmaster?
How is an eBay blurb that mentions that they both had V8s (and draws no other connections between them) an appropriate source to indicate that it was? The burden of proof is on you, not me. OhNoitsJamieTalk02:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting Back
You keep reverting the edits back. Dcelano, March 6, 2014, 03:49, (UTC)
That's why I won't edit on Wikipedia anymore because of topic bans. One more thing, how do I not violate my topic ban? Dcelano, March 6, 2014, 22:44, (UTC)
Dcelano topic-banned from The Wiggles, widely construed. The topic ban can be appealed if Dcelano can show that he has understood the issues and is willing (and able) to comply with Wikipedia's policies, especially on verifiability and reliable sources. Huon (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
DNPric.es as the source of top domain name sales are not spam edits
You have reverted my updates on .mobi and List of most expensive domain names making them outdated as the provided data no longer represents the reality. What was the reasoning behind it? Also, you did not respond to the discussion on my Talk page, but reverted the changes again fueling the revert war. Please first read the Talk page. Should you additional arguments not addressed on the Talk page yet, please present those. To make it fair, please revert the unnecessary reverts on the articles mentioned above. To keep the subject consistent, please continue discussion on my Talk page where you have initiated it. WikipedystTalk to Wikipedyst03:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
You said that 'you are edit warring against three editors; please stop adding spammy aggregation links'. Please check my Talk page. User Ronz who was the only one to engage in the discussion is no longer contesting it. Please join the discussion if you care, or revert the last change as the ground provided is no longer valid. Thank you. WikipedystTalk to Wikipedyst04:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I'm definitely contesting them. I'm just wondering if they might be considered reliable, and if so, if they might also be appropriate in some as yet unidentified circumstances. --Ronz (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You will be blocked if you continue to add links against community consensus. As you've already been told, the links are spammy; that is they are just plain old data aggragators with some ads attached to them. If you'd like to continue editing I suggest you stick with sources that clearly meat WP:RS guidelines, and that you avoid the appearance of a single purpose account. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think DNPric.es is 'plain old data aggragator'. Please provide some example. As I understood, the database is yearly old and is propitiatory. Try to find something of this order and with this statistical details to prove me wrong. Using your logic I can now derive that BBC, Financial Times, even Wikipedia are all plain old data aggragators. Are they? Thank you for coming back on this subject. DNPric.es is all but spam. Ask any domain name specialist and they will tell you about the data value. To summarise, currently we have few outdated pages on Wiki. I tried to update them and provided the links to the ultimate sources in the industry, you reverted the changes back. So do you really prefer to have outdated pages and not allow other people to update them? Looking forward to hear about your reasoning. Thank you. WikipedystTalk to Wikipedyst04:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Wikipedia is not a compendium of trivia, i.e. there is no compelling reason to maintain records of DNS sales. We can easily find reliable sources for remarkable such sales (e.g. tv.com, sex.com). You're obviously not listening to what Ronz, myself, and others have tried to explain to you, and as such I'm not discussing it further. Future attempts to add links to spammy sites will result in a block. OhNoitsJamieTalk01:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am surely listening. Please see the discussion on my Talk page. If you do not mind, I shall update the outdated lists without referring to DNPric.es and other external links, just to confirm I am not a spammer. But please do not delete it this time. It took me a while to gather the delta information. I want to make sure that data on Wikipedia is up-to-date. As to the top sales, why would they differ from other stats? E.g., on population, elections, contests, weather, climate ... those numbers are plenty on Wikipedia. I don't see any fundamental difference between those and other industry related and core findings. WikipedystTalk to Wikipedyst11:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Getting back to you
Hi Jamie
Thank you for helping me comply with guidelines. I made a mistake and linked to the site. It was not promotional by any means. The massage page does lack language around reciprocity, renewal and other fine details. What if I were to re add these notes without the link to the site? I think this is acceptable. I am in the massage field as a practitioner and I feel this level detail will only help solidify the article/page some more. Please let me know your thoughts before I do this. Thank you (Ssajnani001)
Though Dawn is a reasonable source, the focus on the article is on his arrest, not on his work as a writer or author. The previous nominator has a week to find better sources (I did a few searches under both spellings and just found a bunch of Twitter/LinkedIn/Youtube results). OhNoitsJamieTalk17:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meat/socks
Hi, I'm off to bed but have just noticed you close a RM discussion at Iqbal Azeem and then comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phaphra. It may be pure coincidence but it looks as if you may be checking through some contribution history (legitimately, of course, as several other people have done in this instance). Any chance you could take a look at recent comments on Talk:Noor Pur Baghan? - Sitush (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, a question re Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2: You endorsed jps' outside view, which said, among other things, that Wikipedia "would be better off if the two editors endorsing the RfC were banned from these topics" (said topics, I assume, being the areas where QG's conduct is indicted in the RfC; it's unclear). AFAIK, I've had virtually no interaction with you, but assume you must have reviewed my edits (and block log etc.), and those of Mallexikon (the other RfC endorser), or you wouldn't have endorsed such a strong statement. Apart from whatever objections you have to the RfC itself, can you explain why you believe Mallexikon and myself deserve to be topic-banned, and from which topics particularly? What have we done that's that bad? Maybe you can show me a couple diffs that are representative of whatever ongoing problems there are. I'd appreciate the feedback; I'm pretty sure Mallexikon would too! Thanks. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 09:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You maligned my editing; of course I deserve an explanation! See WP:IUC (policy), and also WP:INDCRIT. If you can't justify your criticism, if you got it wrong, no big deal, stuff happens -- I'm not going to be a dick about it. I'd just appreciate you revising your support at the RfC. It's not hard; just copy jps's view and omit what you don't agree with. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 16:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nelson supports plagiarism in the text of "black hole information paradox" where it states that the resolution of the paradox requires the replacemant of Einstein's theory of relativity with Lorentzian relativity, as explained in my paper entitled "Gamma Ray Bursters and Lorentzian Relativity", published in 2001 in Zeitschrift fuer Naturforschung 56a 889. In this paper I was the first who introduce Lorentzian relativity from the pre-Einstein theory of relativity by Lorentz and Poincare to solve this paradox. My paper was cited by Marolf and Polchinski, two leading theoretical physicists, in their paper "Apologia for Firewalls", making my paper a secondary source in accordance with the Wikipedia policy. Nelson is only a computer man without knowledge of this highly esoteric topic in theoretical physics. I never heard that he ever had made an important contribution to the general theory of relativity like myself, having laid the physical foundation of the GPS, acknowledged by the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen. Dear Wikipedia administration block Nelson with his anonymous likewise uninformed friends like "blueberry" or "gaijin42" from editing wikipedia articles about theoretical physics.
F. Winterberg Professor of Physics
No. Your relentless self-promotion is tiresome, and the community has already established a consensus on the matter per Wikipedia policies. OhNoitsJamieTalk13:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Undeserved email notification
You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated.
hi , i just got a message from you. i added one ref from voices.yahoo.com and one from woosa.org , i was not trying to spam any blogs i was just trying to add some thing valuable to wikipedia. there was something written about nofollow what is it ?
can you please tell me if i was doing something wrong , i will improve myself. i wanted to help wikipedia because wikipedia helped me alot.
i hope you will reply.
my email:gchahal1970@gmail.com
thanks. Gchahalg (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Would you care to weigh in at this discussion? It concerns whether a reviewer's paraphrased criticism should be included/kept at a music article. I don't know whether this is an area of interest for you. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are there conditions under which this user could be unblocked? If so, I think they should be posted to this user account talk page. It seems like if they educate themselves on Wikipedia policy, they should be able to appeal this block. This is a much better result than having them just create a new account and continue on with the same behavior. LizRead!Talk!21:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I have my doubts that it's a different person than the IP. I didn't block their talk page access, they could request an unblock, but I don't have much faith that they would be able to get much support for that. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing inappropriate about the recent contributions I've made to Wikipedia. No spam is involved here. These are sources that are directly related to the entries. If this is a problem, you can delete the links to the scholarly journal given in the sources I've added to the further reading list, but otherwise please undo the changes you have made to my contributions. Thank you. Akin kay (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one of your contributions has been to add links to your own papers. See WP:COI. We don't permit reference spamming, and I will not be undoing my contributions. If you continue to engage in COI reference spam, you will be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Level 3 Communications
Hi- I've never edited anything on Wikipedia before. Please let me know why my changes are not being accepted. Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brad.roudebush (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2014
Removal of a comment I made to another editor's talk page
This edit removed a comment I made on a user's talk page. Was the removal of my comment done in your capacity as an administrator? If not, or if it was removed by mistake, please restore it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the connection is, but User:74.62.92.20 posted on User:216.189.170.139's talk page a comment with the edit summary: "jake is a white trash nigger faggot and a terrible "editor" who disrupts/reverts since it gets him off". I reverted it, but I think a block of 74.62... might be a good idea. BMK (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ohnoitsjamie. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 12:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Ohnoitsjamie. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 14:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hey Jamie,
I just wanted to discuss your recent declination of my appeal to remove my 3-day block. I know you are doing your job and all, but I wish you had discussed with me, individually, the reasons why I was blocked and not made that information public. To be honest, I was a bit humiliated and saddened when I realized that you revealed all of that information on my talkpage. Millions of people could have potentially seen and exploited that information, which could have resulted in grievous consequences. And no offense, but you were kind of a bitch about it. Maybe you could help clarify with me why these kinds of issues aren't resolved in a more respectful, private manner? Thanks so much.
24.0.179.41 (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The information was already public. Anyone can easily click on your edit history and view the diffs. That's the nature of Wikipedia. You certainly were not acting in a respectful manner (to wit, pretty much every comment you made to another user after your edit was reverted), and I have no regrets about declining your unblock. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Questions
Jamie -
I've repeated added images to "drug test" "fecal occult blood test" and other diagnostic tests - as I own a diagnostics company and am also a professional photographer - however they keep getting deleted. I've been accused of 'advertising' - however it's my opinion that under "drug test" there should be a picture of a ...drug test. Why would this be deleted, as it's simply unhelpful to everyone? Every product, even soap - has a brand name on it? Rather unavoidable. The same goes with "fecal occult blood test".
Please let me know.
Additionally - we have the worlds only at home colorectal cancer screening test by immunochemical methodology - and you deleted PART OF (?) the name of it. This is rather helpful information for anyone taking the time to find an at home colorectal cancer test....(meaning, to know the name of it, since it's the only one) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbalentine (talk • contribs) 00:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've created an account to leave this comment. I am not sure if this is what you mean by editing the talk page, so please feel free to respond on my talk page.
I'm David Lancashire from Popup Chinese. Last week I made a number of edits to Wikipedia. The process took two days and involved expanding China-related articles based on interviews conducted by the Sinica Podcast, an authoritative show that has been featured on NPR and syndicated by the Asia Society.
Between 14:37 and 14:46 on April 1st, these edits (along with several I had not provided) were apparently marked as spam by your account, and the domain popupchinese.com added to the Wikipedia spam list. Given the speed of the reversions (several per minute), I am concerned this action was taken without understanding exactly why these edits were added to Wikipedia. Examples of revisions that are clearly not spam include:
(1) MAKING STATISTICAL CORRECTIONS:
Chinese Labour Corps:
the edit corrected overly-vague numbers in the original article, and added details on Chinese government involvement in the program. The cited source was Mark O'Neill, the foremost global expert on this subject and author of the only English language book on the Chinese Labour Corps. (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Labour_Corps&oldid=601622504)
the chronology in the original Wikipedia article was incorrect, to the point that there was no mention of the RFA blockage issues. This was a significant enough omission it seems to have been since added back to the page (although in unsourced form) by a subsequent editor. The source was first hand accounts from journalists (recorded at the time) who were reporting on the events that week from Beijing. This is fresh, primary source material. (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Google_China&diff=prev&oldid=602271916)
(3) CITING GLOBAL EXPERTS IN ARTICLES WHICH BENEFIT FROM THE INCLUSION:
Chinese Science Fiction:
Chen Qiufan and Joel Martinsen were already recognized in the Wikipedia essay as two of the most influential figures in contemporary Chinese science fiction. This is exactly the sort of source Wikipedia should highlight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_science_fiction)
As with Paul French, the audio recording cited consists of the author reading passages from his own book, already referenced in the article. This is exactly the sort of thing that Wikipedia should be referencing for those interested in the pages.
I am happy to explain the justification for my decision to edit any particular article if you would find it useful. Since the chronology of your edits makes it unlikely you had the chance to listen to the shows cited, I would hope that you would look more closely at them. Even if you don't listen to the shows, just looking up the backgrounds of the people who are cited should make it clear that the source are not off-topic, and typically involve experts who should be referenced. The materials cited contain statements and opinions from top international journalists (examples include Ed Wong from the New York Times, Adrianne Mong from MSNBC, and Gady Epstein from The Economist) as well as leading industry figures in China such as Dr. David Rutstein, the former acting deputy surgeon general of the United States and now executive vice president at the largest "western" hospital chain in China. These materials do not exist in text form because there is no other type of news or journalistic organization producing these materials.
I will leave it to your judgment whether to make these reversions. I would ask for the removal of Popup Chinese from the spam list. I am concerned about the consequences of the inclusion on this list for my ability to keep publishing things like the Sinica show and send emails to our community of users and guests.
Multiple accounts abusively spammed Wikipedia, which leads to blacklisting. The "quality" of the link is irrelevant when obvious conflict-of-interest single purpose accounts engage in spamming. I will not be removing it from the blacklist. If a regular contributor (not affiliated with the site) wants to use a specific link, they can also make a request at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, attempting to improve Wikipedia is not spamming. Nor does the conflict-of-interest claim hold: the audio materials are distributed entirely free of charge and there is zero advertising on the site. The edits were overwhelmingly in niche articles that will be read by people in Sinology, with the greatest number of citations being links to hour-long interviews with the subjects of the Wikipedia pages themselves.
Wikipedia logs show you reverting an edit every 15-20 seconds on average. I appreciate the role you play in keeping Wikipedia clean, but given this I find it difficult to believe you listened to any of the cited materials except possibly the first. And I do not know how you can conclude that this edit was made in bad faith -- it was the addition of new material to a discussion on the history of pasta in China based on an interview with Jen Lin-Liu (author of a book on the history of pasta in China). The material was new, relevant, and sourced to an expert.
Looking at the speed of the edits, my best guess is that you came to the decision that all links to popupchinese.com were spam on the basis of a single edit (which one?) and then reverted them all and then blacklisted the site without looking at the substance of the actual edits. The fact that changes were removed even when explicitly requested by Wikipedia (i.e. the 2011 food scandals) or almost immediately reinstated by other editors (i.e. Google China) makes me feel you worked from the assumption of a bad faith. And that the blacklisting was consequently punitive.
If you want to put us in a warning category or something that is fine. And I won't edit Wikipedia again because it isn't worth it to risk getting blacklisted for trying to make these changes. But blacklisting is an inappropriate response for my behavior last week. I would respectfully request you reconsider, or at least suggest another editor I could write documenting what changes were made and why in order to request removal.
First of all, you are blocked, so you are at the moment evading your block by editing here from another IP. You were banned from editing pages related to The Wiggles because you failed to respond to feedback and warnings regarding some of your edits. The first step would be for you to appeal for an unblock on your original account. To lift the topic ban, you'd need to convince editors that you are willing and capable of following Wikipedia policies and communicating with other editors regarding your edits. You original talk page has this link which clearly explains why you were topic banned. This is at least the second time I've answered this question. I'm not answering it again. OhNoitsJamieTalk02:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
44robby talk page
No problem with the indef block, which seemed entirely deserved after two timewasting unblock requests. I just found User:RHaworth's use of the {{retired}} template to be an odd and actively unhelpful step of the process. 44robby puts up a diva-ish {{considering retirement}} template, which RHaworth then upgrades to "retired" with no explanation, and when I call him out on it he shooes me away and gives the unclear assurance that 44robby "insists" on the new template (in retrospect possibly just meaning "I changed it, and he didn't change it back, therefore he fully understands the situation and agrees with me"). He ignores my request to undo it, and the next day Robby says he doesn't understand why he's been retired.
I won't lose any sleep if we've confused and deterred a self-promotional liar, here, but RHaworth's apparent understanding of blocks and retirement (that an indefinite block means "permanent", and that he considers this interchangeable with the concept of a retirement template) seems shaky for an admin, and could hit innocent users and confuse other block-reviewing admins. Slap me with a trout if it's perfectly normal for admins to "retire" problem users, I've just never seen it, and can't see that WP:RETIRE even implies it. --McGeddon (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think RHaworth was just questioning the "considering" part. It probably wasn't that helpful in that it prolonged the drama of the whole thing, but he's a seasoned admin and I'm sure it was done in good faith. WP:DISAPPEAR may have factored in to other editor's actions. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OER inquiry
Hi Ohnoitsjamie, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive Editing
About your message on my talk page, the information added to the wikipedia articles are completely true and you can verify it from various sources. If you're not satisfied with the reference link provided, you can always remove it or suggest a better one.
Was wondering how a link to free state maps and atlases is inappropriate. Thanks
Link canvassing sites with Google ads is a great way to get that site blacklisted, which I will immediately do if I see you add them again. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia. I have one concern with a page that I have created: Screenpresso that has been deleted whereas it is similar to the software Snagit or Greenshot.
I have update references to external website and be more neutral. However the page was not read and directly deleted.
Could you tell what I have to do to recover the page and better complies to the wikipedia rules.
Many thanks
Techwritter31 (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The original asin number B000W14A0I (referencing link to amazon.com for the publisher of ancestry.com), will fault not because this is a bogus link, but rather that the site for purchase is currently out of inventory. I understand why you removed the sections; a faulty link does not give good reference. I have included the original link as well as another site that currently too is out of stock. I ask to please revert back the section removal as they are very informative and provide that much more history about the article. Both military veteran burials and history timeline are crucial to this article. Both sections should remain. I understand that we can’t have asin numbers that lead to a blank page, would you consider replacing the asin numbers, with the URL address for reference instead?, it will show the reference to the book, however it will also show that it’s temporarily out of stock. I don’t know when they will restock again.
Ok Jamie, so what recommendation/suggestion would you advise? Any help would be highly appreciated, thank you...Jaimecarballo 20:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimecarballo (talk • contribs)
I was wondering what your reasoning was for the deletion and how I could revise the entry. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, and I'd like to know how to improve. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjorda123 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nineteen Minutes controversy, would you look over it?
I noticed you removed the controversy section of Nineteen Minutes while I was editing it. I felt it was presented in a biased way and tried to 'neutralize' it while providing more information. Since you're a much more experienced Wikipedian than I am, would you look over it? 50.160.108.242 (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." - That's what I needed to see. I did not consider that because I'm in a highly conservative area, the prevalence among the general public in this area is likely higher than it is in other places. The policy and the reason for the policy make sense, thank you. 50.160.108.242 (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for actually reading the policy! (You'd be surprised how many people can't be bothered to read our policies). In the case of The Catcher In The Rye, a "controversy" section is more arguably appropriate, given the widespread attention it's received in the context of school censorship. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk19:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's because I genuinely wanted to improve the article. I feel that so many are trying to push their own agenda. I've used Wikipedia extensively over the years, and I've never donated. I started feeling like this was a way I could help contribute, so I started looking for the un-cited 'sexually explicit passage'. May be an official Wikipedian soon, 50.160.108.242 (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I believe the link I added was a good addition to the French language page as the references listed in the "Courses and Tutorials" section were lacking in references that actually include strong audio components as well as printable materials which I feel are two very beneficial course tools for language learning. I suppose it might be slightly better suited for Quebec French but the reference is clean, ad-free, and has unique components that aren't a dime a dozen. I know commercial sites aren't forbidden by any means, but we all know people appreciate clean, ad-free pages if they are doing further research or study.
I did not add the other link you pruned from the article but I certainly agree with its removal and was considering pruning that one myself. Also, the two University of Texas-Austin links should be just one link, as that first link already includes the "Tex's French Grammar" sections on it. The "French lessons at Wikiotics" page is inappropriate as well as it's an open wiki. It has some very glaring typo errors as well.
In my opinion my addition should be added back, but the UT-Austin links combined, the "French lessons at Wikiotics" external link should be pruned, and the link you already pruned should remain pruned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76quebecker (talk • contribs) 20:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bad that the article had to go. Less creative commons music showcasing itself on Wikipedia. Thus also less music playing on Wikipedia if we don't count the fair use parts which managed somehow to fly through the grey zone of copyright. If you are three administrators of Wikipedia who decide upon such a thing I guess it means? Logictheo (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other than your first sentence, I have no idea what point you're trying to make, but I'll do my best to at least address what I can understand: doing something noble is not one of the criteria for WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamieTalk13:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
