Please add new messages to the bottom of the page. If a conversation is started here, I'll respond here; if it starts on your talk page, I'll respond there.
Emailing me
I prefer to communicate via talk pages, but if there is an issue that you'd rather not discuss via talk, you may email me. If you email me about a block, it's not helpful to write, "help! I've been blocked!" Please include your username (if you have one) and/or the IP address that's been affected.
Why did you remove my external links?
If you've come here because you want to know why I removed some external links you've added, please read Wikipedia's policies on spam and Wikipedia external link guidelines first. Because of Wikipedia's popularity, it has become a target for folks looking to promote their sites, which is against Wikipedia policies. If you read WP:SPAM and still feel that your link(s) does not violate those policies, let me know.
One common argument I hear is But so-and-so link is on that article, and it's commercial! WP:EL doesn't explicitly forbid links to commercial sites; it depends on the notability of the link, its content, and if it's a reference or a notable pro/con argument on a controversial subject, etc. On the other hand, I think that many Wikipedians would agree that there are way too many commercial links at present time, so feel free to "prune away" if the link doesn't meet guidelines in WP:EL. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism and insults left here will be recycled in the bit bucket. Remember: be nice!
Talk archives
Admin
Vandalism
Deletion
Talk
Maybe you can help me out here. I'm under the impression that The Orlando Area Guide is a spam link similar to the one you removed from the External links section of Orlando, Florida. A "team" of anonymous editors disagrees with me, saying this is an official website. Can you review the site in question, and tell me if this is a site with value to Wikipedia's audience? -- SwissCelt 18:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jamie, I will see about adding my Java Lectures you deleted to WikiBooks.If I do, will you again delete the link to it from this article? 20 or so lectures were written in powerpoint because I can simulate
the execution of code with the animations. That is why I hosted it externally. I will be happy to put those lectures in the public domain. Since you suggested it, can you tell me if Wikibooks can support *.pps content? Ultimately, they are just files that open on a link. Pardon me if I offended you in the email I sent. I was thoroughly offended by your instant deletion of my content. As I have said, my intent was to give away the content. I first attempted to see if I could just donate it to Wikipedia. Since, however, I only saw Wikipedia has the capability to host HTML content, I moved to the public googlepages and hosted it there. Please notice that I am not charging for it and--as of now--the site has no other purpose than to freely offer the content. Please advise what circumstances will cause you to delete the link again. If I put it in Wikibooks, will you delete that link too? Thank you kindly for your assistance in this matter. Regards,Tom Curmudgeon99 (talk · contribs)
- If you add the content to Wikibooks, I don't see why it's necessary to also have the link here. Wikibook material is just as accessible as Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure that you'd need to export all of your Powerpoint content to plain text in order to add it to Wikibooks. As I said earlier, you're welcome to propose addition of the link on the Java programming talk page; I just started a review discussion of current links in the article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jamie, First, thank you for your reply. Second, the whole point of those Java Lectures is the dynamic content. If you had perhaps clicked on one of the links--especially the later ones--you would see that the whole point is the dynamic content that illustrates the execution path for the code being explained. If we are limited to just static text than I don't want to essentially rebuild from scratch content that took at least six years to develop.
Also--and I may regret alerting you to this--there IS an external link on the Wikibooks entry for 'Java programming'--and it is an external link to a site that has basically the kind of plain static text that you want me to convert my content to. Funny, nobody on the Wikibook site has molested that person's content. However, I have added my link to my external content right below that guy's content. So, if that irks you, you can go delete my content link as well as the other person's link. Instead, I bet the person who administrates that site is not as spam-shocked as you apparently are. I understand you're trying to keep the garbage out but you ought to give content providers more of a benefit of the doubt. I offered my content for an altruistic purpose. Unless you take it upon yourself to mount a crusade against my googlepages content, it will stand and will no doubt help somebody learn to program in Java. Please just leave it be. Thank you, Tom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curmudgeon99 (talk • contribs) .
Jamie, would you mind emailing me for a discussion on external link guideline interpretation?
Thanks. --Irwinstreet 17:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a reason you want to communicate via email? I prefer to use talk pages. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll take a stab at it. I work for an online publisher of free information for professionals. We have users who ask us if we can put links to our info in Wikipedia, the way our competition does. They say our stuff is more useful and lacks ads. They also are almost never knowledgeable enough to do this themselves, so they ask us, believing it to be possible given our competitor's links, and our job besides. Is there any way for us to try this, short of training a cadre of users to edit Wikipedia pages? Thanks.70.231.142.138 04:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SPAM and WP:EL generally advise against adding links to your own site, ad-free or not. The focus at Wikipedia is clearly on article content, not on external links, so the most of the time editors err on the side of deleting anything that's questionable. It can be a case-by-case judgement for each article; you could try by posting a request to an article's talk page suggesting a link and seeing what others think. Keep in mind that just because an article currently has competitor/commercial links doesn't mean that they are appropriate (in fact, I often end up deleting multiple commercial links while I'm cleaning up after a multi-page spammer). Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jamie, I am new to Wikipedia and am not familiar with all of the guidelines. I added a link to the following website (www.sembasics.com), which was subsequently removed. I have looked over the guidelines and realize that I personally cannot suggest this site as I am the owner of the site in question. I am wondering, though, if someone else could recommend it as I think that it would be a helpful resource for the search engine marketing, search engine optimization and/or other relevant articles on Wikipedia.
Here, are the relevant sections of the External LInks guidelines page which indicate why I think it would be worthwhile including:
What should be linked to
4. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.
5. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as professional athlete statistics, screen credits, interviews, or online textbooks.
This site is a work in progress and eventually will include a list of tutorials on various subjects relating to search engine marketing (similar to an online textbook), such as search engine optimization, pay-per-click advertising, blogs, and more. It is true that there are ads on the site and that we may offer other services in the future, but the tutorials in and of themselves are a free resource for the search community and complement the information foudn on Wikipedia. Also, I have noticed that other sites which have links on Wikipedia contain ads. I have taken that to mean that a commercial site is not a site which has ads on them.
I would appreciate it if you could let me know the guidelines of what is considered a commercial site. Also, could you please let me know whether or not free, online tutorials comes under the category of "neutral and accurate material not already in the article" which contain "a level of detail that is not suitable for inclusion in an article". After all, they contain "other, meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article".
I assure you that these tutorials are extremely well researched and are constantly being revised to keep them accurate and up-to-date. Thank you for your time, Yours truly, Moshe Morris SEMBasics.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GDMSEO (talk • contribs) .
- Your site has Google ads. I don't see any content in it that couldn't be included (or isn't already include) in the article. Most editors, including myself, will remove links to similar sites, as Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting commercial or personal sites. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Three questions:
1) Are step-by-step insturctions of how to properly implement a search engine marketing campaign they type of info that would be part of a Wikipedia article?
2) If the answer to that question is no, then is this the type of information that would compliment a Wikipedia article? If not, may I ask why not?
3) I noticed that the other links in External Link section for Search Engine Marketing also contained ads. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GDMSEO (talk • contribs) .
- Answers
- (1) I don't understand the question, though I will note that Wikipedia is not an instruction guide. Also, it's not appropriate to add content just for the sake of linking a commercial/personal site as a source of that content.
- (2) Answered in #1.
- (3) Then they should probably be removed unless there was a consensus on the talk page of that article for their inclusion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jamie, I added an external link to the only website dealing with information about climbing in western colorado. This is an informational resource. Why would you delete it? Bigh 18:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's not highly relevant to Colorado. If we have a Colorado climbing resource link at Colorado, then why shouldn't we have links for Square dancing and Archery in Colorado? Wikipedia is not a link directory. Try Dmoz for that. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jamie and visitor's wikipedia, i'm so sorry about my url, i don't know.
can i share a picture again? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sanke (talk • contribs) 15:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Now that I've taken a closer look at the links, I'm not sure if the ones you added were that bad. Clearly there is a problem on that page with commercial links, but a couple are probably appropriate. I've started a discussion on the talk page; I apologize if I acted in haste. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. Appreciate it. Clq 15:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem! OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to the loose change video, which you removed. It was placed right below the link to the "The Path To 9/11" video. I would like you to tell me why you removed this. If a link can be placed for such a right-wing piece of propaganda, surely a left-oriented link can be placed in the same section. Please leave msg on my talk page Cavell 21:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Loose Change" has been discussed endlessly on the talk page (probably in the archives now). The other movies you mention in the edit summary are major theatrical or television releases, while Loose Change is amateur. There is a link for it on the conspiracy page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie,
I am the user that Devios was not thrilled about.
I am a chemist who has insight into GSE. I have copies of the studies done on GSE. I actually read the studies unlike Devios.
The info Devios put in the article is false and speculation. And worse it is copyrighted info
that the copyright holder did not grant Devios permission to use. Just thought I set the record straight and clear up the air.
Review the factual article and you will see that their are verifiable references that prove the facts. Devios is incredulous!
Good Day, Nicole.
Hey, i have to ask you that if i revert again, will it be under 3RR. I only reverted clear vandalism. There was no content dispute. Thanks.nids(♂) 20:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, 3RR does not apply to obvious vandalism. Revert away. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your encouragements and clearing my long standing doubts.nids(♂) 20:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quit editing palmer trinity school, you no nothing of it and its interactions, look how flawed the website curently is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.108.236 (talk • contribs)
- Actually, I've spoken with an administrator there (a Mr. Hoke) regarding some of the vandalism to the page. He confirmed that most of the additions anon IPs have attempted to add were bogus; I will continue to remove similar crap from the entry. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fool, why don't you quit being a idiot by reverting the page to an incorrect stance instead of fixing the true problems of the page, I inserted the real facts and figures so that the page contains true information. Nice bluff though about Mr. Hoke (you ass) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.220.122 (talk • contribs)
- Why don't you ask Mr. Hoke if he spoke with an editor from Wikipedia? (ok?) OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd let you know about that Jonathan Nguyen page you just prodded – it's been deleted and recreated several times. Regards, — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 05:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the heads up. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My pleasure! — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 13:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, your not supposed to delete comments on user talk, specifically when you refuse to listen to reason, leave PTS to people of PTS since you know nothing about the school beyond whst s web page tells you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OneKorea (talk • contribs) .
- Removing personal attacks from talk pages is perfectly acceptable. You do not own the article (nor does anyone else for that matter). OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to sign your last nomination. Yomanganitalk 19:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Doh! Fixed it, thanks! OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joe, I added a new external link today to a website I am developing about spam, I note that you removed it. Apologies if it didn't meet the criteria, but I have gone over the external links guidelines a couple of times and I cannot see what was wrong. The site offers advise articles researched by myself and broken into what I consider interesting and worthwhile topics. It includes a relevant news feed and the facility to translate the website into a number of languages. I have developed a number of similar sites and linked to Wikipedia, as well as contributing to various projects here. Basically, my question is what did you see straight-off that was wrong with it, I have been searching for answers on this topic here for a while and need more guidance. Another site I developed has gone through over 60 revisions on Wikipedia and has just been dropped today also. It's quite frustrating, I am not looking to corrupt this website in any way, as it is a tremendous resource for all internet users such as myself. Would be grateful for any response thast could help me :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.145.233 (talk • contribs)
- Read the guidelines again; in fact, the first thing that the "spam1" template says is to not add links to your own sites. It's generally not a good idea to develop sites solely for the purpose of linking Wikipedia to them. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, contribute content to the articles. Your site has Google ads; Wikipedia is not a vehicle to drive traffic to a revenue-generating site. By the way, I'm not Joe either. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ohnoitsjamie&diff=76697279&oldid=76697256 -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Much obliged, and thanks for the user page revert. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My finger was on the block button waiting for that one. ;) I noticed months ago you'd surpassed my edit count (you must be over 20k by now). Do you have the highest number of non-admin/non-bot edits? OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
why did you revert my edits on malcolm x? thats extremely uncool!
--- all my additions are from an excelent bbc documentary
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2485457538368783680&q=malcolm+x+bbc
such data as oxford union debate, meeting castro and some other details that, after watching documentary, i found missing in the article, i have added. it is extremely rude to delete hours of other people's work, and indeed i do not understand what have you against my edits that added a lot of interesting information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.132.170 (talk • contribs)
- Here's a direct quote from your lengthy addition: Malcolm X had great energy, he was able to work day after day with just four hours of sleep or less, he read a lot and once he believed in a cause devoted himself to it completely. I reverted it mostly because it was unsourced. OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- that quote is from the documentary (look at 42 minutes 30s to 43 minutes sample of it) , as almost everything i added. i did not know much about malcolm x and have no particular reason to have any bias in this matter (i am neither black nor muslim or anything like that); much of the article is poorly sourced. when i watched the documentary on google video i checked the web, and find out that some interesting details were missing in wiki article, and added them.
Thanks for reverting vandalism to my page. --Nlu (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
| Here in Wikipedia there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go unappreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go unnoticed. As Esperanzians we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. This is where the Barnstar Brigade comes in. The object of this program is to seek out the people which deserve a Barnstar, and help them feel appreciated. With your help, we can recognize more dedicated editors!
|
What's New?
|
| September elections are upon us! Anyone wishing to be a part of the Advisory Council may list themselves as a candidate from 18 September until 24 September, with the voting taking place from 25 September to 30 September. Those who wish to help with the election staff should also list themselves!
|
| Appreciation Week, a program currently in development, now has its own subpage! Share your good ideas on how to make it awesome there!
|
| The Esperanza front page has been redesigned! Many thanks to all who worked hard on it.
|
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter. |
|
|
|
- The proposals page has been updated, with some proposals being archived.
- Since the program in development Appretiaion week is getting lots of good ideas, it now has its own subpage.
- The September 2006 Council elections will open for nominations on 18 September 2006. The voting will run from 25 September 2006 until 30 September 2006. If you wish to be a candidate or a member of the elections staff, please list yourself!
- The new Esperanza front page design has but put up - many thanks to all who worked on it!
- TangoTango has written a script for a bot that will list new members of Esperanza, which will help those who welcome new Esperanzains greatly!
|
Signed...
|
|
|
|
| Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
|
|
Can you stop going around and giving others warnings? you have no authority. Leave me alone and never leave comments on my page, you, you dog lover. --Rizzwan 22:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the vandalism in question. Furthermore, your assertion about my authority is incorrect, as you will discover if you continue to vandalize pages. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need to get laid. --Rizzwan 22:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And you need to stop making personal attacks. The next one will get you blocked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I own the copty rights, and seccondly there is a copy right clearance on the text see:
http://www.geocities.com/~abdulwahid/hinduism/hindu_women.html
Look at the bottom of the page! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rizzwan (talk • contribs) .
- Even without the copyright issue, it's not a good idea to make such sweeping changes to such an article without proposing them first on the talk page. Furthermore, much of the text you added was not well-organized and not formatted properly and is not written from a neutral point of view. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well duhh I am also working on it, and formatting it, I will change the tone and all my sources are cited. So if you, revert it then you will be vandalizing the page. Are you a misogynist or a supporter of women abuse? if no then let me do what I am doing, as I am a former Hindu converted to Islam so I know what I am talking about. --Rizzwan 22:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will you leave me the hell alone are you some sort of a commie? or something. --Rizzwan 22:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd already created a staging area for the article. Please fix the formatting and references there before attempting to add it to the article space. Also, I'm warning you once again to not make personal attacks on other users. You won't be warned again. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're reverting my work back with no-good reasons, I am new to wiki so obviously, I am not going to know how to format the sources properly, hence why I have added them all unformatted that someone can do them (i.e) format the. SO why revert my work back to some apologetic misogynistic supporting article?
How do you expect any articles to work on here if you go an revert everything back just because someone hasn't formated it correctly. The point of wiki is to do collaborations to expand the articles. So please I am asking you nicely don't revert my work or help me to format it and to remove the text whcih is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Why are you trying so hard to piss me off? --Rizzwan 23:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've given you the reasons for the reverts. Formatting is less of an issue than sourcing. Any time you make a submission, the statement, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable appears below the textarea. Please read that link as well as Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and neutral point of view. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You told me once not to post my link. Fine. But when I remove your links "WHICH WERE BROKEN" you still revert my work back. Now that page has your 2 broken links again. What are you insane? Did you even check your own links? Your really power-stricken and a "know-it-all". Maybe you need to find something better to do with your day than harass every one else who use and enjoy this website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gouimet (talk • contribs) .
- I checked both links and both were working, so I restored them. Your links violated WP:SPAM, which is why they were removed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- seconded. just checked both links. Syrthiss 23:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- you guys were correct. I was wrong. I had 2 sources check for me, it's my computer. I appoligise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gouimet (talk • contribs)
- No worries. If you can see some sites and not others, it could be that your ISP is having a problem with one of their routers.
OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Something interesting I just found. Once of my sources re-checked fitness.gov and it does not work for him in Internet Explorer (I use IE6). When he originally checked, he was using firefox. I just checked on firefox and it works. Have you guys checked those links in IE6? User:Gouimet
- Both worked in my IE6; maybe a security setting or some kind of spyare/antivirus/proxy plugin? OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jamie, I created a useful reference for the antique industry. A glossary, newel.com/glossary.aspx. I added a link under the antique furniture section and it was removed. Can you explain why this was removed and not allowed and the other links are allowed. I notice links to sites all the time. I'm still not clear on why some sites are allowed and others like the one I just added are removed. I'm starting to feel that Wikipedia is useless as a site. I'm trying to add value and contribute and only get frustrated and see other sites of less value and links to sites that display google ads allowed. What's the point? Rickbrown55 (talk · contribs)
- We've been over this before on the talk page for that article. Folks are constantly trying to spam Wikipedia with commercial/promotional links, and as such it's not difficult to find inappropriate ones. If you do, feel free to remove them. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello...I'm sort of new at this, so I'm sorry if I make any mistakes. I happened to look up Dachshund, and read the Wiki article. Toward the bottom I saw a heading for "Clubs, Associations, and Societies," so as assistant organizer of the Boston Dachshund Meetup, I added a link to our group. I noticed that within minutes, the link was removed. After going over some Wikipedia rules, I realize that this link may be regard as spam, partly because you have to register for the group, and partly because it is a very localized group. I decided to just add a link for the national dachshund meetup where people can search for a group near their area. Some groups (like ours) require approval while some others don't. (We require it so to afford the group a modicum of privacy and protection, but there is no fee involved.) I hope the new link is ok. Please share your thoughts if you decide to delete it. Thanks, Vinnie
- I'm OK with it, but if another editor feels that it's spam, you'll have to take it to the talk page for that article (i.e., ask for input regarding the inclusion of that link). P.S. Don't forget to sign your talk page comments with four tildes: ~~~~. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- *points at the talk page* :) I'd say it violates multiple points of WP:EL - Trysha (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Trysha is correct. My focus is mostly on ridding Wikipedia of promotional/advertising links, but according to the letter of the WP:EL and WP:SPAM policies, there are probably only a small fraction of links that are appropriate. Personally, I tend to lean toward deletion of links rather than keep; it's easier to avoid the gray areas that way. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The information i placed on Neigbours is correct, as i watch it practically every monday-friday on channel 10 at 6:30 pm on Australian television. Sorry to seem rude, but i know the actors/actresses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truelife (talk • contribs) .
- Solution to problem; source your additions. Declaring that you know the actors/actresses isn't good enough. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about editing ur comment. I was just confused and i forgot how to add a comment on the page so i accidently pressed somthing, and i think i deleted ur comment by mistake. and then when i realsed i did so, i found out that it actually works so i edited it more. Anyways, i apoligise deeply for that mistake.
sorry again
Truelife 03:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, OK. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... I don't think so. You don't like blogs? Fine. I have no connection to the satire site in question - take it up on the article's discussion page, and don't make assumptions on my talk page, please. For Toledoans, the site is a go-to humor site - I live in between Detroit and Toledo, and have a lot of relatives there. Do you? Gauging from your contributions, you seem to spend most of your time just making snap decisions about a user's intent and issuing blocks, warnings, and the like. But heck, just my opinion. Johnbrownsbody 22:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Like you said, we're all entitled to our opinions. I still call it sneaky spam. I distinctly recall other users sneaking that site in among "minor grammar" edits (e.g. [1]; might be interesting to run a CheckUser on that one). Blogs are rarely appropriate links for articles unless the blog has (1) verifiable notability or is is written by the article's subject. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea what you are talking about in your most recent entry on my talk page. I am sitting at a public library in Toledo making some edits, and you are accusing me of all sorts of strange edits. If prior users of the IP you listed are quacks or spammers, that's too bad, but I am not the person you should be complaining about. Please find more productive uses of both your and my time. Thank you.Johnbrownsbody 22:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The edit patterns speak for themselves. (By the way, I've rooted out most of the other nationalnitwit blog links). Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How come you delete a Microsoft recommend expert zone website ( http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/related/default.mspx ) - SoftwareTipsandTricks with over 35,000+ members.
And you allow your friends websites with hardly any members - who just copy and paste content from other large sites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keke (talk • contribs)
- In my 15k or so edits, I've probably added less than ten external links total (if that), and certainly not to a friend's site. (I don't have any friends who make money from websites as far as I know). Feel free to peruse my contribution history. If you feel that some of the other remaining links are non-notable, feel free to delete them. See WP:EL and WP:SPAM for link guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the word "apostille" , why are you deleting a link to a site that has had useful info about apostilles since 1998?
Doesn't make sense!
You are just a little Hitler, where do you get off? Almost any page on the net could be considered commecial nowadays. You have issues! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.44.61 (talk • contribs)
- I don't think you've read WP:SPAM or WP:EL. The site in question sells Apostille's. It's advertising. Period. Furthermore, I recommend that you not make personal attacks, as doing so is grounds for blocking. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie. Could you please have a look at Articles for deletion/Islamic violence afd closure? Thanks in advance. -- Szvest 14:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign[reply]
- Hasn't been moved to the "old" list yet, but it looks like a consensus for deletion to me. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks mate. Szvest 00:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
William W. Quinn, Jr an article created by Sheldunn (talk · contribs), has been proposed for deletion. I noticed on Sheldunn's talk page that you had some issues with Sheldunn's contributions, which as of 20:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC) are limited just to Quinn and Quinn's dissertation. I'm letting you know about the PROD in case your previous interactions gave you insight into a reason to keep the article around after all. 66.167.139.50.[reply]
- Yeah, that editor was pretty unclear on the ropes. I'd have to agree with you that the book/author doesn't appear to meet notability tests. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guest:I have been accused of vandelizum (and bad spelling) in my messages for an IP address that isn't mine and for pages that I have never gone to. It says itself that AOL uses the same IP address for multiple users. And it has now blocked me from editing pages. (which i don't do much) I would like this corrected.
I voted for non-deletion. The general view, however, was that the subject was too "broad". I now find that a search for "famous women" results in a list of articles considerable less useful to a searcher with only a broad idea of what he or she is looking for. (I'm thinking of perhaps a middle-school history student with a deadline approaching.) Does it make sense to redirect students to lists of "short women", and "tall women" for instance?
Do you think it would be feasable to improve the usefulness of the Wikipedia to students by giving a more organized redirection page in response to a request for "women" or "famous women" or "women in history", or should we create a new "famous women in history" page which refers the reader to a clear set of subcategories, sugh as "women in science", literature, art, etc.?--Davidrei 20:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that the elimination of that list leaves a real void. I would suggest to a student wishing to do a report on a famous woman to start in a narrower category first; e.g., famous women in Colonial American history? Modern Turkish history? There's always the Category link for women and all of the sub-categories. OhNoitsJamie Talk 07:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestions. I searched for "Famous Women in Colonial American history", "Famous Women in Modern Turkish history", "Famous Women", and "Category:Women". I also looked up "women" and "women in history".
I noticed a void, not in the underlying articles, but in the response to the searches. This is what I mean:
The first two searches, of course, returned nothing. Although one might argue that no one should conduct such a search, I can imagine a good faith desire to fill a void in, for instance, a History textbook.
The search "famous women", results in a red (dead) link to "famous women in History", followed by links to the abovementioned "famous short women" and "famous tall women". At this point, the student might wonder why women between 5 feet and 5 foot 10 inches have been deleted. No answer is presented.
The search for "Category:Women" does present links leading, eventually, to lists of scientists, writers, actors, etc. which would bbe acceptable to a teacher.
However, few searchers will find this page without site-specific knowlege, which we can't assume.
Also, aesthetically, I find the list odd in two ways:
First, the breadth of the subcategories is bewilderingly variable. My eyes are drawn to a whole series of British nobility categories, then to tantalising info about "Pregnancy" and "Page three girls". It's true that "Women by occupation", etc, are available, but the subcategories seem to belong to different and unrelated lists. If you compare to the system of organization of "List of Chinese People", for instance, the difference in utility is clear. Subdividing the list into subcategories "Kinds of women", "Groups of Women", "Links to pictures of pretty girls", "female subsets of lists of people", and "aspects of womankind" would make the page much more readable. Although the concerns of middle-aged men are certainly valid, I think we should not rebuff the more intellectual needs of students with girl-free History books in hand. They deserve a clear path to the subjects of interest.
I then tried "women in history". Although no such page exists, the list of near-miss pages was extensive and more-or-less on-point.
Would the inadequacy of the response to a "famous women in history" search be best improved by creating a short article by that name with links to proper narrower searches? Can the searches "Famous women" and "famous women in History" be redirected to "women in history" to take advantage of the excellent set of near-miss links?
I think either would be better than presenting an error message in response to a simple, clear, and popular* request. Better, because even the conversation about the propriety of looking for a list of famous women would be advanced by giving the information, along with a note explaining the controversy. What do you think?
/*The "famous women in history" page was #849 in that (disputed) visit count of June, 2005. That would put it in the top 0.5% of articles.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dcoetzee%5CList_of_Wikipedia_articles_with_at_least_1000_hits)
It was #48 in Google to Wikipedia links on March 7th, 2003. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_articles_frequently_visited_through_Google)--Davidrei 21:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think internal search optimization is a good solution (nor do I think it's considered acceptible). If you have suggestions about organization of categories, there are ongoing discussions regarding that issue. Wikipedia's Categories page serves as a good starting point, with info about category guidelines in general as well as links to active projects. Categories is one area that I haven't delved into much, so I can't help you much beyond pointing you to that resource. I think you have some good ideas; I'm sure your input will be welcome there, as there is a lot of work to be done. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, and I'll look up Categories. And Illinois. --Davidrei 22:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, as you're probably aware, we're still having a problem with IP users vandalising bong. I know that you banned one IP, but it seems that either he/she has access to multiple IPs or there are a lot of other retards who insist that it is neccesary to ignore consensus, not to mention Wikipedia policy. I don't know if it's severe enough to warrant semi-protection, but yeah, we need some kind of admin help I think. --Anaraug 23:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like he may be using an open proxy. I'll have a few of the IPs checked; if it persists, I'll semi-protect. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The IP 218.188.16.66 has again vandalised not one, but two pages again (specifically Shusuke Fuji and Kunimitsu Tezuka), thankfully Yamaguchi先生 reverted their edits, but can you do something about the user, like temporarily blocking them or something? To be honest, the Prince of Tennis pages have been getting a lot of vandalism by IP logs, is there some way of only letting register users edit the pages?
Thank you! Sincerely, Vera26 06:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 218.188.16.66 (talk · contribs) is blocked for 48 hours (length extended for second block). It is possible to restrict anons from editing pages via semi-protection, but that should only be used if individual IP blocks doesn't solve the problem. Looking at the history of Prince of Tennis, it's hard to tell what's vandalism since folks aren't using edit summaries. (It's always a good idea to put something in the edit summary box; for vandalism reverts, "rvv" is fine). Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that this avoidance of delicate issues isn't restricted to the Turkey page. A whole load of pages relating to Turkey conveniently fail to make any mention of it. Even Human rights in Turkey fails to mention that you can be jailed for calling it a genocide. There's not much that can be done, as I think that an overwhelming majority of editors are Turkish, and feel offended by criticism of Turkey. I'm not Armenian or anything, but this seems to be quite a serious problem. Any ideas? Is there a way we can make a public announcement for help from neutral editors? Yandman 07:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's sanitizing/censorship as far as I'm concerned. If I have time today, I may try to put together another section that outlines major issues in EU membership as reported by reliable sources; if that isn't acceptible, I'll take it to Request for comment. I don't have issues with any country in the world (though I'm not a big fan of all governments). I do have a generally favorable opinion of Turkey's government, but I am firmly against censorship and sanitizing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I put in an RfC: Talk:Turkey#Request_for_Comment:_Sanitization_of_Turkish_history. I hope we can bring in some neutral editors to debate this. Yandman 07:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,I was just wondering a few things about an ip adress being blocked. I use the computers at school sometimes to surf wikipedia, and this IP adress is banned, 151.196.98.43. I sometimes make edits too, and under my account. I dont have a history of vandalism, yet im blocked, and I am a fairly established user. Is it possible for my username to be unblocked? or is the ip adress as a whole completely blocked?
Thanks for your time.
Bearingbreaker92 21:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UntraveledRoad
I hope you don't mind if I move this conversation here. I see you are very bitter about me. I am sorry for that. Can we talk this over and come to a truce of some kind?
