This is the talk page for User:W163 (Jeff Ogden).

As you might have noticed, I went ahead and put her article in the DYK queue. I thought you were looking for another reviewer so I also made some edits. I see you already caught the confusion with the dates in the lead. I tried yet again to reword and hope it is less ambiguous (NIC was at SRI until 1991 but she was not, of course). Also tried to fix up some of the linked articles that are pretty bad still. More tomorrow if we have time. Thanks W Nowicki (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks. Jeff Ogden (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth J. Feinler, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Elizabeth J. Feinler (pictured), better known as "Jake", ran the Network Information Center of the Internet until 1989? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Awesome work. You're the man! Melchoir (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the revisions there--much needed paring and clean-up. Cheers Khazar (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did my best to pitch in over there, tweaking some grammar, links, and refs. But really you didn't leave much left to be done--again, I'm a fan. It pains me to admit I'm no good at formatting barnstars, but here's my tacky attempt all the same. Feel free to redesign, and thanks! Khazar (talk) 05:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank you for your work on the Freedom in the World page. Very informative. Czolgolz (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to both Khazar and Czolgolz. And an extra thanks to Khazar for the Barnstar (my first) and for his updates to the Internet censorship in Thailand article, both are most appreciated. Jeff Ogden (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Anytime you need a pedantic copy-editor for one of these, feel free to flag me down. Khazar (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Liberty
		To User:W163 for his improvements to Wikipedia's coverage of Internet censorship, particularly at Internet censorship in Thailand. Khazar (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hail to the editor valiant!

Thanks for your notes on the talk page. I rewrote the section first using the POV material, and then removed the reformed POV material to the talk page. I removed the NPOV tag. Please review my edits, and make corrections as you like.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, but since you did most of the work, it is you that deserve the thanks. I read over your changes and they look good. I'll try to do a more detailed review over the next few days. I'm going to be away from computers starting tomorrow and over the weekend and probably won't get to it before then. Jeff Ogden (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for updating Press Freedom Index with the 2013 data, great work! ThomasStrohmann (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you put up a link for this one and noticed you're expanding it. I don't know to what degree you might be interested in including this, but illegal Internet use is one of the primary charges on which Burmese democratic activists are being locked up (see 88 Generation Students Group, Nilar Thein, etc.), a practice that's gotten coverage in the BBC, NY Times, etc. (see these articles for links). It might be worth working in some of these specific cases, but though I read your Thailand one, I'm not sure what the precedent is for how these articles are usually structured. Anyway, thanks as always for your excellent expansions. Khazar (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Khazar, not sure what the precedent is either, but I did something along the lines you suggested. Take a look and feel free to make corrections and other changes. Jeff Ogden (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please solve this mystery if you can...

On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond

Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond

I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!

I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 23:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the outline a bit, and have further developed its structure. Please take a look to see if you can improve it even more. All feedback, ideas, and advice welcome. Cheers. The Transhumanist 22:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you did there. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But do you like what you see? Jeff Ogden (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd objected, I would've reverted. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're signing as "Jeff Ogden". That's fine, but you probably should register the account locally and redirect the user / user talk pages, when you get a chance. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jeff. I left a comment and some questions at the talk page. My interest is inspired by this AfD. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i may be doing something wrong here since im new to editing things on wiki so please help me understand why you keep deleting my contribution to the article "Internet censorship in Syria " and where i am going wrong there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xlantraymon (talk • contribs) 15:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about the change you made at 7:30 on 4 July 2012? Your change deleted two bits of content that I had added earlier about the CPJ rating Syria the 3rd most censored country in the world and about a report from the EFF. Your edit summary didn't explain why you did that. Your change also reinserted the comment about blocking of the Arabic Wikipedia that said "And it has been blocked again after a while" which I had deleted earlier as too vague and unsourced. And you changed the content related to "the-syrian.com" that I had edited earlier. Your changes needed copyediting and the link to the WSJ graphic was not done correctly. I reverted your changes which restored the deleted content. The content about the-syrian.com was kept, but it was edited to fix up the problems and rather than a separate section it was included in chronological order in the History section. It took me two edits to get the-syrian.com link to the WSJ graphic right. So, from my point of view I didn't delete your entire contribution, but edited it to make it better and I restored some content of my own that you deleted. The content about the-syrian.com has two references, but they are both from the the-syrian.com. It would be better if there was a reliable third-party source that could be used to support that section. The link to the WSJ graphic does provide some support, but the WSJ article isnt really about the-syrian.com and so doesn't really allow one to verify the content in any detail. Hope this explains what I was doing. Thanks for asking. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi again. sorry if this reply went in the wrong place, as i said im not quite familiar with how u edit things, so when i found that my section about the syrian.com was removed i supposed it could be a sort of vandalism so i went to the history and retrieved what i thought the last copy since i added the section... apparently i did it wrong so apology for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xlantraymon (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC) (Xlantraymon (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

however the section about the-syrian.com is still missing on the page. i made that section couple of days before i join in with a username, since i thought editing things without registering may have been the cuz to delete that section, can u help restore that ? or let me know how i can post it properly? Xlantraymon (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The information about the-syrian.com is still there, just not as a separate section with its own heading. Instead it is included as a paragraph in the History section. The WSJ graphic is mentioned and there is a link to it in the reference. We can't include the graphic more directly because it belongs to the WSJ and is not a free image available to Wikipedia. Editing without registering is OK, but doing that probably makes it more likely for the changes to be deleted when there are problems with them. In general it is better to be registered. And entering good edit summaries that explain what you are changing and why is a good practice too (I don't do that myself as much as I should). --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my fault again...haha! thank you Xlantraymon (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent edit to the page nternet censorship in Australia, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about "organizations" with a "z", that wasn't me. I was just copying and pasting text that was already part of the article as part of reordering sections and reworking the lead. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that IP that puts citation needed templates on the article has been doing the same thing on numerous other articles that were ALL critical, or in opposition to, the Vietnamese communist regime, to try to doubt the content that was already there in hopes that the content would be deleted by other users. In fact, that IP has been up to severe ongoing vandalism on numerous articles on South Vietnam by calling various people " closeted homosexuals", "Catholic pigs" and other ridiculous nonsense, as well as blanking content critical of Viet communists, like in the Ho Chi Minh and North Vietnam articles. For a few days now, most edits that this IP did were adding citation needed templates everywhere on content that they didn't like, but the content that they put the templates on were all true, and often substantiated and sourced, info. So, if this IP, and any other IPs that begin with the same first 5 or so digits, that were to put such templates on such articles, like this internet censorship article, it would just be more vandalism and disruption, and it would all come from the same person since the 4 IPs that were engaged in the same type of vandalism all began with the same first 5 digits, all supposedly from Los Angeles through AT&T. If these templates were added, appropriately, fairly and as needed, by someone else, I wouldn't have removed it. Nguyen1310 (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is continuing over at User talk:Nguyen1310. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please considering returning to Talk:Criticism of Google#Cleanup tag and answering the questions I raised there?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said that my comment about the possible first public user was interesting but needed a citation. My post (which was, I think obviously, about me) is based on first person knowledge. I intentionally included some of the detail, and the interesting information, to enhance value and to add authenticity. I have been making the claim, for many years, that I was the "first user of the internet." For 20 years I have done so as with a humorous slant. However, since no one has contradicted me during those 20 years, it appears to be a true statement.

HOWEVER, I am not familiar with Wiki rules and etiquite and I am interested in your thoughts about what "citation" would be necessary to allow the information to stand, pending any truly contrary data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbrower1 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, which among other things says: "Do not edit articles about yourself, your business, your clients, or your competitors" and "Subjects require significant coverage in independent reliable sources". Also, you said "since no one has contradicted me during those 20 years, it appears to be a true statement". But you might also ask if in those 20 years anyone has agreed with you? --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved a copy of this discussion over to Talk:History of the Internet#First "public" use of the arpanet/internet?. Please continue the discussion there. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing some nice work on cleaning up Reporters Without Borders! Good job, Crtew (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox ((User Freedom of speech)) to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using ((WikiProject Freedom of speech)).
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I did 1 and 2. Will work on 3-5. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks so much for your help! — Cirt (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for joining WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech!! :) — Cirt (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We use commonname in articles, in the lead and infoboxes. This isnt "having it both ways", but an arangement that has come from an Arb-Com ruling, to basically stop the edit wars on Irish related articles, and was amended by the project. There is an on-going discussion on categories, where an admin has asked for clarity on catergory usage. So its not straight forward for anyone not familar with it. The first two points of WP:IRE-IRL clearly indicate what should be used in the lead, and as for the link you summaried with "When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations". Murry1975 (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this conversation over to Talk:Internet in the Republic of Ireland page. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Freedom of Speech for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Hope you have a great day. -buffbills7701

	The Technical Barnstar
	For improvements to Packet switching ~KvnG 14:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i add indoneisa for Hate Speech by --Sunuraju (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hey W163 in the article Internet_protocol_suite you commented "the video explains "classfull" IP addresses, but we've been using "classless" IP addresses for over 20 years now". I am not sure if I understand you correctly. We are using Classless_Inter-Domain_Routing but IP adresses still come with a network class even though these networks might be divided into further subnets? How and where exactly do you see the need for an update? maybe you could give your feedback and thoughts on the talk page of the video on commons File:Classful-IPv4-networks.webm best --Renepick (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

will do. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw your note with an edit to Internet in Belgium. I had looked at the spreadsheet and didn't see number of users or a way to figure the ranking for number of users. I'm curious how you got the figure. Did you cross reference that table with population data for all the countries to find the number of Internet users in each country? That sounds like a ton of work - there must be a better way. I'm wondering how you came up with the 8.6 million figure. I just ran the question on Wolfram Alpha and it gives a figure of 9.1 million also with 82%, but it doesn't explain the source of their figures so I wouldn't call it a reliable source. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity, SchreiberBike talk 02:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The figures in the "Internet in Belgium" article (and a lot of other "Internet in xxxx" articles) comes from the List of countries by number of Internet users article. They use data from the ITU as a common source. The ITU gives a percentage as you saw. The total population for most countries comes from figures from the U.S. Census Bureau. And the rest is simple math. It is a bit of work, but not too bad since you can get the data into a common spreadsheet using copy and paste and matching the country names from the two sources can be automated too. There are two notes, one for the population column^[1] and one for the percentage column^[2] in the article that try to explain what was done and some additional information on the talk page. We try to use data from a single source (the ITU) for all countries and to update the figures for all countries at the same time so that the figures will be comparable. This has the side effect of only needing to be updated once a year since the ITU data is updated once a year. And that cuts down on the work a bit.

--Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clear explanation. Seeing that you are using the figures for multiple countries' articles, that sounds like a good approach. SchreiberBike talk 17:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you recently reverted my changes at Freedom House page. Please explain me, where is any astrerix marking that these countries are electoral democracies? . . . (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

. . .

I copied this discussion over to "Talk:Freedom House#Map caption?". I don't know that there is much more than needs to be said about the map caption, but if there is lets do it over on that talk page. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that if and when you apply ((recently_revised)) to an article, that you go back and remove it after a two or three days. At that point it is no longer recent. It is the ordinary state of affairs that any article could benefit from improvement and attention, or has been recently edited, and as such, the ((recently_revised)) template is actually superfluous.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. In addition to looking at the word "recently", one should look at what else the template says: "recently underwent a major revision or rewrite" (emphasis added). The major revision or rewrite takes this outside of the "ordinary state of affairs". Also, "recently" is a relative term. I think old "recently revised" templates should be removed, but for fairly low traffic articles such as the ones that I have been working on, I think it is reasonable to leave the template in place for a month or so. The goal is to get a few more editors to notice, look over, and hopefully get enough of their interest so they join in the process of editing and improving the articles. Heaven knows that some of the articles I've been editing recently are long neglected and out of date and could use more attention than they have been getting. And two or three days just isn't a long enough time for people to visit many of these articles and see the recently revised notice. There was some mention of ≈1 month on the template's talk page, but nothing as short as a few days. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll refrain from removing your more recent additions of the template for several weeks. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll try to remember to go back and remove the templates after 3 to 5 weeks. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hey, could you update your map to the newest report: http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php --80.53.5.108 (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the map you are talking about is File:RWB-PressFreedomIndex2013-WorldMap.svg. It isn't my map, but I'll look into updating it. It may take awhile. I took a quick look at the RWB website and I didn't see a list of countries with their 2014 ratings. All I found were text descriptions and a map without a key. Perhaps I missed it. Hints welcome. The RWB article is dated 12 February, which is tomorrow, so perhaps they are still in the process of putting everything in place. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff. I was caught up in a family emergency and failed to realise that I hadn't left you a message regarding the above request.

Please don't put pressure on yourself to update the map. I'm simply toying a little with this 'contributor' as I've recognised them as being sock/s for a particularly persistent, blocked user. The same user, with multiple IP addresses, has also been recognised as being such by Favonian. His/her MO is written all over the entries, and their favourite method of bypassing being blocked is by delegating work to other editors & contributors.

While I recognise that the map should be updated, there has been absolutely no other regular contributor even interested in updating the info, much less feeling that an updated map is an absolute imperative. Before I can re-open the sock investigation, I just need a little more interaction in order to confirm it. There's already been 2 instances of calling me 'Irina'... another signature boo-boo he/she makes.

Cheers for your patience with me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	You're doing a brilliant and great job on Wikipedia relating to internet censorship and your contributions to Telecommunications in Ghana. Keep it up. Regards. →Enock4seth (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it looked awfully familiar, and sure enough I was able to track down my own print, along with negative, in my basement archives. I must've given a copy to Computing News for use at some point. In any case I figured you wouldn't mind if I substituted the larger and prettier version for the one you uploaded (and adjust copyright & permissions accordingly). It was fun to stumble across it, that's for sure! JohnInDC (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to have a better photo. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I was also grateful for the excuse to fire up the negative scanner, which doesn't work reliably with any version of OS X past 10.4, and is tethered to a 13 year old G4 machine that probably should be booted more often - JohnInDC (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment was entered on my user page by 75.164.220.20 (talk) at at 19:37, 19 July 2014 and was reverted by User:Iryna Harpy at 20:11, 19 July 2014. I am including a copy of the note here. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC) ‎[reply]

Hello Mr. Ogden,

Thanks for your commenting on the freedom of speech talk page. I believe that according to your listed experience here on this page that you don't have the necessary qualifications to continue discussing/debating (these words are synonymous) the freedom of speech with me. However, I don't mind the commenting except please stay focused on the point I am making. You seem like you have a computer background. My background is 100% freedom of speech. I've read every online dictionary, among other printed versions...; so when you argue with me it's really annoying for me. I suggest you focus on the intent of the pages and my comments instead of what you think (because this seems to not be your field). The intent of the freedom of speech page seems to be freedom of speech, not limitation of speech. -Austin @ austinpowers123@usa.com

The following comment was added to the talk page of 75.164.220.20 by User:Iryna Harpy around the same time that 75.164.220.20's edit to my user page was reverted. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:W163 may be offensive or unwelcome. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette.
Any discussions you wish to engage in should be posted to the user's talk page, not their user page. As a word of warning, Wikipedia policy is to assume good faith. I would suggest it prudent that you rethink your supercilious tone before engaging with the editor in question. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

In regards to rm of external link on Internet Slang - please see the discussion on User_talk:195.144.219.106. 195.144.219.106 (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I entered a comment at User_talk:195.144.219.106. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do update Globalization Index to its 2014 version (http://globalization.kof.ethz.ch/)--86.3.42.147 (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been doing much Wikipedia work recently and do not know if or when I will get around to doing this update. Others with an interest should feel free to do the update. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To add the better sources. We don't source information about petitions to the petitions themselves; most petition sites are blacklisted and Avaaz only escaped that through an accident. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy: I didn't forget. Two better refs were added to the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act article at 10:57 on 8 June 2015‎ as part of the same edit that restored the previously deleted text. Is there a Wikipedia policy on petition sites and how they should be dealt with? Can you give me a pointer? Why are most of them blacklisted? It can't just be because they are petition sites can it? --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Stesmo. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of List of Internet exchange points. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Stesmo (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stesmo: Lets take this discussion to the article's talk page. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me draw your attention to a note on my misgivings pertaining to the present state of Wikipedia structure on this page:

The growth of the Internet has made it imperative to distinguish better between governance and regulation, more specifically, Internet governance and how it relates to the more traditional field of telecommunications regulation.

Even more particularly, I protest against deficits on pages like this:

   "Regulation" is inadequately put here
   and here "Policy" is reduced to "Law",

Are you concerned with this lack? If so, please let me know. Seniorexpat (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:MeritLogo2005.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You were maintaining that wiki page in past, so need help about it. I made new stats for 2015., but have problem with notes in table and don't know what to do with older data for some countries. And if you have some time and make percentage ranking correct in table.

It's in bottom of this page. Talk:List_of_countries_by_number_of_Internet_users — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.168.109.187 (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Internet censorship in the United States. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: First I have heard about this requirement. Did something I added recently bring this to your attention? Can you identify a few places where you think this is required? That will help me better understand what needs to be done. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content in Internet censorship in the United States was copied and closely paraphrased from this document. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: It appears that you already added the "PD-notice" template to the ref. Thanks for doing that. And thanks for not fixing the problem by simply deleting most of the text. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RWB Internet lists has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]