Jamie,
Thanks for your note. I did not thinking adding a link to informational sites was a bad thing. I had run across a series of articles I thought would be useful at the site. Also I noticed the guineapigsclub.com link which is far more commercial and less informative about the GP than the ones I linked too at http://www.bestpetarticles.com/guinea-pigs/ You'll see they are unique and offer a lot of good information for those looking to care for a GP. I would think the gpclub site would be more in the lines to your stated policy than those of the site I recommended. Again thanks for the note, I'd like to see it change, but understand a site preference/resource conflict.
br —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.227.114.171 (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a happy Birthday message to you, Ohnoitsjamie, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! |
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
--Nadir D Steinmetz 11:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't much care for being accused of "blanking" or other vandalism, especially when non-notable content is removed from Wikipedia on an hourly basis. I had no idea that some people take so seriously content related to their little hobby, but harassing a disagreeing editor with "warnings" does not seem to be what Wikipedia is about. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi - there's been a not-quite-open-and-fair dispute going on at the Pilates page regarding the External Links section, which you may want to take a look at, since part of it took up your time, unfortunately. You probably noticed that a link to a webpage at thinkpilates.com suddenly showed up earlier today on many unrelated Wikipedia pages, prompting your attention to remove them as spam, as indeed they were. But someone (or a group), it seems, is determined to keep that particular link off the Pilates page, without discussing, and also, by resorting to malicious impersonation, probably to ensure that that link and possibly the domain is blacklisted at WP. Please see Talk:Pilates#External_Links for the discussion. BTW, the domain is not mine, I simply found it as a useful source of information. Nonlinear149 (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I must ask why you filed a Wikiquette alert about an editor that you were in a dispute with, and then blocked them. It would seem to me that this may constitute a breach of your responsibility as an administrator. At the very least, you should have involved an impartial administrator. Is there something I am missing here? I am especially concerned because this appears to be the second such block involving questionable circumstances on this editor. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you would be willing to resolve a dispute on Lotus Esprit. The argument/disagreement arose over a series of external links that a user added, I removed, he added back in, I removed them again and started a discussion on the talk page of the article. The primary people involved are myself and Greglocock on the side of removing the links and DanBasterfield for keeping them. Dan does not appear to have any COI. The discussion has gone on for quite a while and has gotten too out of hand for any of us to decide; that is why we need a third party (and an administrator) to come in and resolve this dispute. If you would be willing to help us out, we would all appreciate it because, as I said, none of us have been able to come to a consensus.
Thank you, Zach4636 (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You blocked 72.241.252.97 about an hour ago for vandalism. This IP doesn't seem to have edited lately and the last few days and the most recent edits seem to be in good faith. You don't appear to be editing right now so I've gone ahead and been bold and removed the block under the assumption that it was an accidental block and that you meant to hit a different IP. If I guessed wrong, please feel free to slap me with a wet WP:TROUT and reinstate the block. Thanks. --B (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jamie:
I'm sure the people who created this category intended it to include celebs who had been previously incarcerated and no longer are.
But that's not what it says. The label put on the Hilton article and a lot of others is "Incarcerated Celebrity", the normal meaning of which is a celebrity currently in jail.
Since this is not true of Ms Hilton (as of a few minutes ago; I checked the news) and possibly not of anyone else in the category either, it is a false label. IMO, it should not be there as it violates the BLP policy.
Can I get some feedback on this please?
Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Fine then. ALright, now it's timme to kick some admin ass!!!
...Did I say that out loud? Wuh-wait. What're you doing with the bloock button?! AIEEEE!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lantern Oil (talk • contribs) 07:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Reversion | ||
For reverting so many unhelpful edits and vandalism on Wikipedia I User Swirlex award you this Barnstar. |
Please took article in the "puppy" this very sad picture. I can not, article "Puppy" partially protected from editing. File:Puppy at musorke.jpg, this photo. Poor dvornyazhka is needed in the article. Thank you. More interesting to me - how many times thy personal page has been corrupted Vandals paint? 92.113.135.214 (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I am from the Rissian Wikipedia. The the maximum number of cases of vandalism edits there is 42 on the user page Обсуждение участника:AndyVolykhov↔ 92.113.135.214 (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
|
i'm sorry for vandalizing your page, i was just trying to do something cute for my gf and i's anniversary. didn't mean to disturb. won't happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggy3985 (talk • contribs) 22:36, February 10, 2008
Ohnoitsjaimie, I am trying to update my newest hobby of home automation, and I put a page up, with content that I researched and am working on, but you took it down. I applaud your swiftness to keep the wiki clean, but on this one can you let me know what I did wrong, and I will address it. Thanks in advance for your time Scrltspdr (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Ohnoitsjaimie, Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Pawlenty, you pulled my edit for citing blogs. Blogs are frequently the medium of choice for independent journalists. Douglas Hester is a local independent journalist, with a history of covering the "uncomfortable" cases, including Tim Pawlenty's broken campaign promises. Where do you draw the line to decide on reliability?
princewally (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2008 (CST)
To quote:
Joel Rosenberg is an established expert in the field whose work in the field has been published by reliable third-party publications. I don't know Douglas Hester's work as well, but the existence of two independent sources should tend to confirm the reliability of both. I've started a discussion over the inclusion of this issue on the Talk:Tim Pawlenty page. --jdege (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion
By Step III, there's an extra space after "Open the..." Enigma (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi - just to let you know that I've emailed you the sources for the Miss Alabama USA article. I'm hoping you'll revert it back... I've used up my 3 for the moment :P PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
My username is spider341. I am relatively new to wikipedia. Do you have any tips? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spider341 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jamie:
From first edit to an indef block in 19 minutes. Would that be a record?
Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I added an explanation why the text on ReplicaNet is not a copyvio on Talk:ReplicaNet (the text is public domain) so please undo your delete so the article can be improved. Fnagaton 09:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Ohnoitsjamie how do you make a user page?
--Spider341 (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Ohnoitsjamie how do I learn this editing language. I am only familiar so far by editing pages how to make a hyperlink to another article, and to do this
(see below where i did the underline thing on my username spider341)
but i dont know any more. Do you have any ideas on how I could learn. is it ok if I copy and paste stuff from people like i did with the heart from somebody's editing page?
thank you --Spider341 (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
❤ happy post-by-one-day valentines day
how do you make your own entry
--Spider341 (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It's the official band profile. How is it not official? Have you even followed the link? Zazaban (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Why did you restore obvious vandalism at Coat of arms of Egypt? AnonMoos (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my page. (I didn't realize it until now.) --Nlu (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Ref Rabbit link you reverted - previous edit added a link, which was discussed on the discussion page the same as mine was. Happy for link to be removed, so long as this policy is applied consistently.
I think maybe you made a mistake here: [1]? I'll let you self-revert if you want. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jamie. Once again I contact you for advice. I am writing a new page on my grandfather, a pioneer of the Mexican military aviation; The article is not yet life in Wiki as am in the late research phase. And I have a few images I want to load to Wiki Commons but the first one I did got tagged for deletion says I am not providing the correct licence info; I released it to public domain which I think is fair. I read a lot of links related to it and am more confused than in the begining. The image in question is Image:C-3B Stearman.jpg and I have about 5 more to come of my grandfather. Some more Images of my grandfather I obtained throught the Mexican public archives, and Mexico's Department of Public information - National Defense. After hours trying to understand the licence policies, I am at loss of what need to be done, how to edit the file, and what to do with the next images I have to share. I will appreciate any help you may be kind to share. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jamie. How do I add the Veiled Chameleon picture I've uploaded to the Veiled Chameleon Wikipedia page? P.S. Sorry. I made a mistake on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veiled_Chameleon#External_links billybizkit (talk) 9:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I just reported the vandal that's been getting your userpage a lot to ARV. Enigma msg! 06:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I saw you reverted [2] this section.I think too its not relevant but what are your thoughts about this argument, please help us with your knowledge.[3].Thank you.--Thispoems (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Albania is part of Chaonia which is irrelevant to that article.See appropriate article and sources to that effect.It was not a good faith effort since the sources were there that pointed this out eloquently and to the point.Megistias (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Please, Don't Vandalize The Kobe Bryant page! The "Sexual Assault" case has nothing to do with Kobe's "Basketball career". Dwilso (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, Assualt has nothing to do with basketball, and besides I don't want my kids to see that Crap stuff! Therfore, I will be taking this matter up with WIKIPEDIA Managers.. Thank you!!! Dwilso (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
"Vandalism" for writing in something truthful that you disagree with. LMAO, liar.
Burgz33 continues to Wikistalk via IP socks and the odd user account - the latest being User:D o Gizzle . I've recently reverted a bunch of edits stalking User:Yankees76) and vandalism (the latest being a senseless redirect of Couronne to a page that does not even mention the term, and subsequent posturing on Yankees76's talk page). I feel my next move will be to file an abuse report. What is your experience with this process in the past (if any). Or would you suggest moving towards an outright ban of the user? Right now there are well over 80 socks and IP's that have used by this vandal. Let me know what you think. --Quartet 22:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
How is the edit i did on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals vandalism. PETA is a terrorist group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayanddoubleyou (talk • contribs) 23:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I have posted the proposed picture of a champion chihuahua on the talk page of the article. I was wanting your opinion of the picture before I go ahead replacing any existing images as it seems the issue of which image to use has been a very contetious issue. Was just hoping when you have a minute or to that you would take a look and give me your opinion. Thanks and if there's any way I can help with improving the article on chihuahuas in any way do let me know as I have many great resources available. Crazy-dancing (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. You just recently deleted an external link of mine, which is fine because it appears to have violated Wikipedia guidelines. I use this resource extensively, and I don't want to abuse the system. I have added another external link for a different article The Science of Getting Rich on its dicussion page, which I think is the proper protocol? Could you perhaps take a look at it, under the heading "Possible External Link," and let me know if it would be approved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WongDarlar (talk • contribs) 15:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
How [4] is spam? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello You removed important links on the Iranian Oil Bourse page... The articles are listed in google news, and I felt they were important to the events... They were not "spam articles" and if you felt, just because I added two from the same source, that they were spam... you should have just removed one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decoyjames (talk • contribs) 20:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Jamie... It is not a blog, It is a news site... Yes it uses a blog code... but so does many news sites. We are listed on google news... and are considered a reliable source.... What I add is extremely relevant to the article... I do not just go add my links on every page I can.... Please revert all back, except for the John McCain one... I understand that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decoyjames (talk • contribs) 03:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh... and it is not even my site! I write for it... occasionally... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decoyjames (talk • contribs) 03:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jamie, I noticed that you recently reverted edits to the Youngstown, Ohio, article that established a link to the Metro Monthly Web site. I am aware that Wikipedia has a strict policy against creating links to blogs. Although I am not very familiar with the Web site in question, I can tell you that The Metro Monthly is regarded as a reputable news and feature publication. Respectfully, -- twelsht (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
hey, 86.131.87.242 is looking for a block apparently. I reverted its vandalism to your userpage. Enigma msg! 17:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The home inspection wiki meets the guidelines for adding links; at the very least, it is certainly not spam. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty to lengthen you 24 our block of user:Chlipala to 1 month because of the totally incivil communication coming from this editor, and his spamming. Guess I should let you know, and that it is fine with you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You gave this user a permanent block for two edit, one to a talk page. I think people might consider that harsh, unless you have reason to think they are a returning vandal. Any comments? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring ((subst:CURRENTYEAR))! ~~~~
Ms. Knott, I think, is acting one-sided, and making judgements based on personal, and not professional, opinions. To me, she's acting like a childish human being, and I have not called Thegingerone any names, but I have been appaulled by the libeling she has given me. Thegingerone, however, has labelled me as acting insane, and I think Ms. Knott is showing bias support towards her. Also, when a person denies you certain rights because of race, do you just let the person get away with it? Kevin j (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
hello. as only 'decoration', there's really no rationale for them being there, and there's no provision for it's inclusion any of the infobox guidelines whatsoever. --emerson7 17:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest starting a discussion and getting some consensus as to whether or not their appropriate for userboxes versus widescale deletion (if you click on the image itself, you'll see it's used on a large number of bios). Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please read the message which I put on the talk page of splash and the Hexer - both wiki.en sysop - and perhaps include (or restore) what I wrote about the origin of the easter bunny ! Christophe Neff (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
isn't wiki.de a proper source - and the Rheinpfalz Artikel - or isn't ? Christophe Neff (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree with your block of Pawatch, but both versions were horrible from a NPOV standpoint, and Pawatch at least had BLP on his side, even if he didn't realize that as a new editor. --Onorem♠Dil 23:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I tried to add some relevant, pertinent information about the de-listing of Greater Yellowstone and Northern Rockies wolves to the gray wolf entry, but it was deleted. The de-listing is verifiable and important to know when reading about issues surrounding gray wolves in the U.S., especially after the reintroduction of the species. In addition, external links to fact sheets were deleted for multiple animals -- this was not meant as spam, but as a way to provide people with more scientific and educational information about a particular animal or species. These fact sheets are incredibly useful for students and for educating the general public, which is a trait shared by wikipedia. Thanks for your time. Defendersofwildlife (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
A vandal you blocked added what sounds to me like threats of violence [7], which I reverted. Should this go to checkuser to see if he has other accounts? Edison (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The "gold" article, it was littered with spelling inconsistencies in both forms of English. It has been reverted to it's incorrect form in violation of Wiki policy by a "new" user.
The original form of the article was in one form of English; and amendments added in American English.
Wikipedia policy is that articles are kept in the original form of English used (rather than separating them into two forms as is the case with Norwegian).
Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Consistency_within_articles Then please, revert the changes.
Without naming names, it is against Wiki policy to immediately refer to article changes as Vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism
Do not go around throwing your weight about just because you've got enough time to kill to be a moderator. Sort your attitude out. The Ancient Clan of Pimps and Huslters (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not trying to advertise. The company's page is already up, and I thought links to their official site(s) would be appreciated, useful, and couldn't get more relevant than that. I don't know what the big deal is. It's actually just a school project, that's all. It looked like Wikipedia was getting more pages and info lately on companies, but maybe not. I certainly won't be looking on here if I want to know more about a certain company. Career Genie (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)\
A few months ago you reverted a few of my edits. You explained your reasons and I accepted that I needed to learn as much as I can about Wikipedia policy and procedures and rules and everything Wikipedia. I have read most, if not all of it, and you sir, I believe now with all conviction, revert edits just because you can instead of actually contributing to an article. I'm sure you have written an article here and there, clean a few up through hours of work, but you tend to just land your heavy hand on the table and make everything on it fall instead of gently moving the pieces in their correct place. It's a very annoying thing that you do, but if you feel you must, then go right ahead and revert till you feel all warm inside. I am no Wikipedian but I tend to edit here and there, punctuation, spelling, grammar, but I do not dare to edit seriously anymore because some editor is just going to revert all my work and give me a lame explanation. So I will just admire Wikipedia and I don't care to be an editor anymore because it's obvious that anyone can be an editor as long as they have plenty of time to do as they will. There is no wonder why you get vandalized as much as you do, and I bet you like it. Take care and be good. P.S. I won't be at all surprise if this gets edited out as well ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.48.167 (talk • contribs)
hi, i just wanted to agree with the comment above this one and say, i think you're ridiculous. i've added a considerable amount of content to the provo, ut page because i love provo and the page has little to no actual content, especially about provo's renowned art and music scene. but apparently, you are more than okay with listing some jackass byu "track stars", lds musicians, and some dancer no one has ever heard of as "notable residents". but you go out of your way every time to remove josc castor, someone who consistently plays shows to crowds of 300 to 1000 in and out of provo (like this summer when provo city shut down 100 north and he played to 1200). the difference between him and these "track stars" is the people that pay money to come to his shows come because they have a deep emotional connection with his music. not because they are bored college kids that go would go to any school-sponsored events. so thanks for being so "objective". if josc were homosexual like steven merrit and tegan and sara, then would he be notable? just wondering. i hope you remove this, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwonderedthenbutnowimfine (talk • contribs) 08:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ohnoitsjamie, who was not happy that I added to the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#History_of_Monsanto about Monsanto the latest out-of-court development as of the 19th March 2008. I have now put in as well the reference, a press release in German language. I hope that a press release is an acceptable reference - if not, I would like to know what is? This development is indeed the most decisive I have read about GMO, because if a company claims property rights on a plant which carries modified genes, then the company is legally responsible to removing it, wherever it grows in the world. I am looking forward to your response.
Hi Ohnoitsjamie/archive11! Thank you for your support in my RfA (87/3/3).
|
Hey, douchebag, before you undo my edit you might want to realize that Google's "custom time" is referenced elsewhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.183.108 (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I would just like to inform you that you were wrong for saying I vandalized the page. Google owns youtube. You need to get off your high horse, and admit you were wrong. I'm sorry, but you are NOT the god of wikipedia. So do not correct me when you are clearly in the wrong. ^_^
Have a nice day ^_^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.68.118 (talk • contribs)
I stumbled upon that article because Young Man was linked from it; that page was actually about a Jack Ingram album. (I have since moved it to a dab page, since Billy Dean also had an album with that name.) When I tried to remove the link to Young Man, it told me there were some spam links, so I snipped those out (all four of 'em); and then I noticed that one section that read like one big copyvio. The falconry page is still a wreck, but I think it looks better now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I am the user who recently added a section to the article on Christianity, which apparently you deleted. I am sincerely interested in the reasons for the deletion, though I can probably guess some of them. I just want to see where you're coming from so I can improve my future contributions.
Thanks in advance for the constructive criticism, my username: christianw7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christianw7 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you an admin ? If you say that there isn't problems for these categories i stop now. But i want to notice to you (see here) vandalisms of Bill Thayer: Personal attacks on my talk page, spam of its personal site (now removed), some lies, and so on. I come formatting the categories, if you say they are useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.194.103 (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Got your very kind note, thanks. That said, although the overwhelming bulk of the 2900+ links to my site were not inserted by me — I really do have better things to do! — and there are plenty of pages where I haven't inserted links to information on my site because I don't think my site is good enough (although in those cases I haven't removed the links to other sites, although they're even less good!): we try to make the world better. If it so happens that I have the best information online, as I do for certain places in Umbria, a region I know very, very well: then I'd put links to my own site, yes. Recently, even, I've been forgoing even that; the latest example where I neither edited nor linked to myself for example, is the stupidity, exploded as a fraud in 1887, in Wikipedia's article Justinian about his name having originally been "Uprauda", I just didn't bother with, be just this kind of thing, revert wars, pretenses at scholarship, etc.: see Bryce's article.
That said, to avoid any further problems of any kind — returns to me far outweighed by incivility like this, my hands shook for half an hour after I saw that item — I asked my server master, James Eason, to blank all links on Wikipedia to my site. He not only acceded to my request, but included his own site on Sir Thomas Browne, for which he is an authority, and Jim Grout's Encyclopaedia Romana: it was easier to do it across the whole server: we rather agree on Wikipedia. In sum, in order to reach the link I just gave you, anyone reading it above will have to copy it and paste it; although there are still some kinks to be worked out — the Bryce link I gave you seems to go thru for now, but most of the others are blocked (see for example the link under "External links" at the end of Pliny the Elder, the Latin text).
I know fellow siteowners out there who'd sooner shoot themselves in the ear than do that, but in my case (1) Wikipedia accounts for a very small percentage of my site traffic; (2) I'm completely uninterested in site stats (at least in terms of bulk numbers, which merely represent expense and server drain), my aim being to provide good information online to those who need it; (3) and most importantly, what matters to me is the quality use of my site, (even now about 80% of my traffic is for very silly reasons or from poor use of the search engines — the people who land on me, by and large, themselves don't want what I have to offer), and, according to Google Analytics, the ratio is particularly bad with people clicking from Wikipedia. (I'm also well aware that all links on Wikipedia are "nofollow", so that anyone who tries to spam Wikipedia in order to pump up their search engine rankings is not only dishonest, but a fool!)
The solution to the garbage on Wikipedia is very, very simple, but has only been partly implemented and then, only under the duress of the Seigenthaler incident: in order to edit, just like almost every bulletin board on the planet, registration and a valid e-mail should be required. Watching my watchlist, for months now, the overwhelming bulk of "edits" I've seen has been vandalism and reversions, followed a distant second by footnotes, references, templates, categories, etc., an equal distant third to that by spellings, rephrasings — and only last, to the actual substance of articles. In sum, Straining at Gnats and Swallowing Camels: in that Justinian article for example, the paragraph in which the idiotic Uprauda appears is decorated with 12 references to 9 footnotes, some of them documenting the most obvious facts — yet Mr. Uprauda is in full unfootnoted glory!
By temperament and philosophy I'm a utilitarian; my basic idea online, whether on Wikipedia or on my own site, is to produce the best result for the most people with the least work. Needless to say, having to fight for everything, even often the most obvious things, doing them over several times, etc. is diminishing returns. It's bad enough when I goof up on my own site, as I often do, unfortunately, and have to go back and fix it! let alone the endless cosmic struggle on Wikipedia. There are many sensible and civil people on Wikipedia, and many good editors — but you guys are being swamped, and it's got worse over the last coupla years.
The "self-promotion" bit is incomprehensible to me. Obviously it doesn't enter into Wikipedia's internal category system, so I'll lv that aside. As noted, I include a link to my own site only when it's good; and I mention the source (as for example in the article Durastante Natalucci when the article would be taken by some conscientious person as being a copyvio had I not explicitly marked it. I derive neither income nor academic fame nor, alas, any other advantage from my website; unlike Wikipedia, I do not ask for money — and the last person who wrote me, unsolicited, to give me some, I turned down. So I just assume people are chasing their own demons, but there's no reason I have to be dragged into them. . . .
Again, you've been kind and sensible, and I sincerely appreciate your kindness, which undid most of the damage to my nerves (I'm not well, and react very unhappily to bullying and abuse): so I really owed you this rather full note (see what you've opened yourself up to!); but it's a farewell: I'm logging off, and will not be back, either under my user name or anonymously. I can, of course, always be reached thru the e-mail pages of my own site. Kind regards, Bill (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I dunno if this is trolling or not, but feel free to revert me if it wasn't. 21655 τalk/ ʃign 19:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess its up to you sir,from your lofty liberal perch,to define and/or defile our Freedoms-now that your all grown up and have a little "control"...........Jay T
I guess its up to you sir,from your lofty liberal perch,to define and/or defile our Freedoms-now that your all grown up and have a little "control"...........Jay T —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.120.4 (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I am a little confused by your removal of a MEDICAL DOCUMENT from a category. I am at a loss to how you could consider what I wrote spam. I added a MEDICALLY approved document to wikipedia, validating a piece of information - and you removed it. Why would I want to SEO Blackwell-Synergy? Why would I want to spam that? Medical traction for the penis is now proven to work, and I added that information to Wikipedia. Here's an idea, I just want that information there. So why don't you do whatever it is your have to do to add that, without the links, spam, advertising or whatever it is that you think is there. Just make it known that traction works and has been proven to work. How's that sound? No hard feelings, I am sure Wikipedia gets hammered with BS - but some on... don't remove real legit information. This is a MEDICAL JOURNAL. Not spam. :)
Fair enough, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.58.188.68 (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I reverted this edit of yours. The IP editor was correct; AT&T has supplanted T-Mobile. I improved on his or her citation with this article when I did the reversion. Thanks for keeping an eye on that article, though. It certainly attracts its share of crap and cruft. --Dynaflow babble 01:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, there is a vandal whom you have warned operating on the article self injury. They are persistently changing the spelling of one word in the article against the spelling convention. The users actions constitute vandalism since they are extremely repetitive in nature and they have now included swear words into the main article text. Can you help them stop? The user is Radical18241 (talk). Sorry I didn't know how best to deal with this vandal Jdrewitt (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi OhNoitsJamie -- I've been looking at the Hogging article and I added a notability tag. I was wondering if, in your opinion, this topic is notable, or a candidate for possible deletion (again.) I read through the past discussions to delete or keep, so I know the history of this article. But I want a more experienced opinion on this.
I've read the sources cited on the article, and even though one of them is in a peer-reviewed journal (based on the original 2003 article in Cleve Scene + a few more interviews -- it was qualitative research, not quantitative), I don't believe they constitute notability. Please let me know what you think, if I am in error to cite the notability guideline, and if you think there might be a case for deletion. I believe this is one of those topics for which Wikipedia has become a primary source of information -- I was contacted by a member of the media who wanted to do a television piece on this issue, and from what I can tell, all of his information came from Wikipedia, and he was unable to find anyone to independently verify the phenomenon. Okay, I will stop bugging you now. Thanks Peggynature (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
In regards to the Parkchester listing, THE PARKCHESTER INFORMATION NETWORK [9] has been listed on Wikipedia a very long time ago and was, as a matter of fact, the first external link to be listed.
Why was the link deleted. THE PARKCHESTER INFORMATION NETWORK is not a commercial website but rather a great resource to the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.224.162 (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Jamie,
Thanks for your the explanation in your note. I did read through the External Links Guideline, and I'm not sure I agree with the premise of your link deletion. The page is not commercial in nature, nor an advertisement. It is a directory of churches in a particular city, and a helpful resource for a city page. If there is a way we can change the page that we're linking to better adhere to the guidelines, could you give us some suggestions on it? Thank you for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mychurch (talk • contribs) 01:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added the following to RapidShare.
<<quote>> How ever, independent sites providing content listings are available that allows anybody to obtain a specific URL based on a keyword search. ref = http://rapidshare-search-engine.com <</quote>>
This was to avoid readers getting the misconception that it was not possible to "search" RapidShare files, as mentioned in the wiki. Many such indexing sites exist, and allows any non-memeber to search and download files.
My view is that, on being impartial and neurtal, this fact has to be shown.
How ever each time i added this, it was reverted. Lastly i got a warning for vadalism from you. I beleve that my addition is clarification of an existing fact, along with a reference, and that it should be added to the RapidShare wiki page.
I strongly disgree with ur interpretation of this addition as "vandalism"
Tidalbobo (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why u hav done this. I need to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidalbobo (talk • contribs) 07:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I clearly support your statement regarding the suckitude of American Idol. It's the epitome of the realitrash TV, and the idea of it being (or having been) rated number one is both scary and sad. Cheers! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You deleted Nashville homeless power project as CSD-A7. The article's creator wrote (to the person who tagged the article): "It wasn't complete, but it did have plenty of references." Could you please take another look at the article and consider whether the references might be enough to establish notability? If you restore the article to my userspace, I could try to improve it. --Eastmain (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I added a sentence to the definition of cattle to say that cattle are sentient animals with awareness and the capacity to feel and to suffer, and I included a reference. This is an important aspect to mention since it is commonly overlooked and not mentioned anywhere under the entry for cattle. I would like to point out that on the wikipedia page about dogs there are several paragraphs on dogs' personalities and intelligence. I've included a few examples below. Why do you allow those statements but no comments that cattle even have the most basic capacity to feel pain? It looks like you are biased and not remaining neutral.
"Dogs are very social animals, but their personality and behavior vary with breed as well as how they are treated by their owners and others who come in contact with them. It is not uncommon for dogs to attack humans and other animals; however, this is usually because of lack of care or improper upbringing by its owner."
Evaluation of a dog's intelligence "The meaning of "intelligence" in general, not only in reference to dogs, is hard to define. Some tests measure problem-solving abilities and others test the ability to learn in comparison to others of the same age. Defining it for dogs is just as difficult. It is likely that dogs do not have the ability to premeditate an action to solve a problem.
For example, the ability to learn quickly could be a sign of intelligence. Conversely it could be interpreted as a sign of a desire to please. In contrast, some dogs who do not learn very quickly may have other talents. An example is breeds that are not particularly interested in pleasing their owners, such as Siberian Huskies. Huskies are often fascinated with the myriad of possibilities for escaping from yards, catching small animals, and often figuring out on their own numerous inventive ways of doing both.
Assistance dogs are also required to be obedient at all times. This means they must learn a tremendous number of commands, understand how to act in a large variety of situations, and recognize threats to their human companion, some of which they might never before have encountered." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry845 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
What's the problem? I was still in the process of writing the page! I'm getting really aggravated because people ask me about the site all the time and I wanted to put it out there so people can get information about why it was created and all. WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawbreaker77 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Very well. I'll cease with my alterations of Hillary's page. I bow before you. /bowPiebunion (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I added valuable information, and you just deleted it. It was in no way vandalism, it was info on one of my teachers. It was not biased or anything. I know you have so much power on Wikipedia, but don't be a jerk and do whatever you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freelectricity (talk • contribs)
I hope I'm doing the right thing here... I thank you for your feedback, yet I'm noting at least according to myself that the band entry falls correctly into several notability conditions plus that I'm an independent person from the band yet as I happen to know the same band I was granted permission to generate this page yet I don't see how this could constitute a conflict of interest. When I created the page I only followed on what was done in other local bands pages (maltese bands stub) some of which were much less notable then the band in question. I'm really striving in following all the neccsary criteria yet I cannot see where my entry is failing. yes i really do need help apparently & I don't think I'm asking for much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yendor79 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have seen that you contributed to Online chat in the past... currently there are contrary opinions about a list of chatting software. Maybe you could have a look and comment on the discussion, thanks! - 83.254.215.235 (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It appears that GuptaWang is self-promoting as soon as his block expired. He has placed a link to his book "The Quest for Global Dominance" in the globalization article, among other things. That I'll revert but his other edits and whether he should be blocked again I'll leave to you, since I'm pretty new around here.Academic38 (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted my page about Third Time's the Charm because it lacked notability. First of all, I wasn't finished, second of all, I know I'm new to this, but who are you to decide which bands are notable? I know that 3xC is a punk band and therefore isn't nearly as artistic or groundbreaking as most of your godlike indie bands, but you could have let me finish the article.Gfschind (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, they have recived airlplay in the New Orleans area..if you would have let me finish the article, you'd have known that.
about comment on ossama bin laden discussion pageAMERICAN MIGHT (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm new to editing wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMERICAN MIGHT (talk • contribs)
I'm so glad to hear about your love for Hannah Lanoue but could you keep it out of the articles. I suspect that you and Doctormanhattan were both trying to remove the crap added by Meganloveshannah and the Dr. beat you. Gave me a good laugh when I saw what you had done. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 02:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, on 18 January 2008 you removed this external link "Banana and Plantain Section of Biodiversity International" from Banana[18] and apparently in connection with this removal left these warnings and threat[19] on User talk:Kamayav. To me this external link appears to fit within the guidelines for external links easily. I am concerned that a new user was threatened with blocking for doing something which appears totally OK. Please explain what you find objectionable about the linked site. SmithBlue (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm seeing a new editor, with a view point that helps WP become more globally relevant, being typified as a canvasser violating WP:EL, and as probably violating WP:COI too. And then being threatened with being blocked.
And the material that was added? - notable, relevant, on-target for the articles.
Gourmet chocolates to boost incomes and preserve biodiversity at Bioversity International
etc, etc.
Can you understand my concerns? If so please address them. If not then we will need to work towards a consensus and understanding of WP policies. It may be best that time be spent with us discussing how you arrived at your view of this new user and whether following that process again would be in WPs best interest. SmithBlue (talk) 06:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)