User talk:Jonty303

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Jonty303, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links for to help you get started:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair 19:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Inappropriate links to The Game

Hi Jonty: you're adding to links to The Game and http://www.losethegame.com to a large number of articles, which is verging on Wikipedia:Spam (you'll notice many of these additions have been reverted). Regarding the external link, this should not be added - the internal link should always be preferred, as the external link is listed on the main article. However, in many places even this internal link isn't relevant. Have a look at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style (links) and Wikipedia:External_links for some good guidelines on when to link. Thanks! WhiteCat 08:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to echo this sentiment. "The Game" really isn't that notable. Please don't make me have to stalk your contributions page. Savidan 12:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realise about the external links. Please give me some examples of irrelevent links, because I have only put them in related articles. Jonty

[edit] Inappropriate articles

Hi, Jonty. Your new articles, Fat ass and Lame Ass are not encyclopedic and will be deleted shortly. I encourage you to contribute to the encyclopedia in a useful and more helpful way. Thank you. —Cleared as filed. 00:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

These terms are in very common usage within the USA and UK, in what way are they not encycopedic? Jonty
Have a look at Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Wikipedia_is_not_a_slang_or_idiom_guide. You could add these terms at [1] perhaps. WhiteCat 10:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What nonsense?

Jonty, stop adding links to the Game to articles where it isn't relevant or you will be blocked without further warning. —Cleared as filed. 00:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you please tell me which of my additions have been irrelevant?

[edit] Your Mental Game edit

Hi Jonty - this edit you made recently had a couple of problems:

  • Firstly, it's generally not a good idea to simply try and re-add a change someone else has reverted (in this case inappropriate links). You have a much better of chance of getting your edits to 'stick' if you discuss your proposed changes first, and get others to agree with them. Simply repeatedly trying to re-add edits just results in edit wars, accusations of vandalism and eventually blocking, which helps nobody! Try and determine why your edit was reverted, because it's almost certain that if you simply add it again without explanation it will be reverted again for the same reasons, and along the way other editors will become frustrated.
  • Secondly, independently of whether the link you're introducing is relevent, you should not add both an internal AND and external link to the same thing, as I've mentioned above.

WhiteCat 05:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

How is The Game not a type of mental game? It is the probably the most purely mental game I know of. I specifically made the Mental games page because there was not one to cater for The Game and other mental games such as Donkey Donkey etc...


[edit] My additions

All of you are complaining of nonsense and irrelevant links, but no one has given me an example. Obviously everything I have added is relevant where I am from or I wouldn't have added it. So unless you give me some examples I don't know what I'm doing wrong.

I think it's fairly obvious from your edit history what is being referred to. Some examples of irrelevant links:
  • [2],[3],[4], [5],[6]: here you added links to The Game to the Forgetting, Mental Event, Chain letter, Philosophy of Mind & Brain articles. It's not relevant or important enough to merit a link on any of these articles. Can you see that in an encylopedic article on the Brain, for example, that a link to a mental game doesn't improve the article? Remember, although it may seem notable & important to you, it isn't necessarily so for others (and the number of different editors who've removed the links should probably indicate this to you).
Ok, but I don't know what you deem as unimportant until I've added and you've removed the links.
  • [7] added link to Cannabis (drug) with the claim that it's 'A game played by cannabis users'. This is a rather dubious generalisation, and again it's not notable enough to be linked. Same applies for the similar edit to Stoner (cannabis)[8].
Stoners spend a lot of time visiting each others houses and using the internet and generally chatting a lot about philosphical shit. Out of everyone I know, the majority are stoners, and the majority also play The Game, but there is almost 100% correlation with stoners continuing to 'play' The Game (i.e. losing it) whereas non-stoners tend to not see The Game's philosophical importance. My recent research on the internet also suggests a massive link between cannabis use and The Game.
  • [9] added link to The Game to a list of game categories: it's not a category.
  • [10] added link to Mind Games to the Mind article. Not relevant.
  • [11] added link to www.losethegame.com to Memetics article text. Not appropriate or relevant.
  • [12] added link to www.losethegame.com to Psychology article as 'A Psychological Experiment'. Deceptive link title, and not relevant or notable.
As I said before, I don't know whether you or others find these links relevant until I add them and you remove them.
Some examples of edits that could be considered nonsense:
  • [13] listing "loss of The Game" as an effect of cannabis . This is not at all encyclopedic.
Everyone I know loses more when they get stoned.
  • [14] Gratuitious and unexplained link to The Game on the Star Wars article.
I thought Star Wars fans would be interested.
Loss of The Game is the most common reason people I know use the words shit and fuck.

[edit] Spamming

Please stop. You've already been warned once for spamming links to losethegame.com on various articles (of which few have much relevance to that site). If you continue to do this, you may be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone read what I've written in my defense... so far..."in what way are they not encycopedic?", "What nonsense?", "please tell me which of my additions have been irrelevant?", give me some examples"...no answer yet...
I don't know which of my additions are wrong unless someone gives me some examples. Jonty

Re: more linking spamming at Meme and Memetics: Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signing comments

Hi Jonty - just a tip when you're adding comments to discussion pages: if you add four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your comment it will automatically sign your edit with your name plus the date so it's easy to see when comments were added. WhiteCat 10:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] OhNoItsJamie's Deletionist Bullying

  • Removed my redirection from the Spanish name for The Game, 'El Juego' as supposedly nonsense vandalism [18]. Later apologises to another Wikipedia user saying 'I guess I was too hasty in tagging that one'...[19]
  • Removes my addition that Aphex Twin (aka Richard D. James) grew up in Carharrack whilst leaving the info about his album.[20] Which is more important, that he named a remix after it or he grew up there?
  • Removed etymology of skunk (cannabis) from the strain Skunk No. 1 [21]
  • Removed a link to my How to Skin Up Guide (Skinupperology), more informative and detailed than any of the other guides and including photos, all the other inferior links were left untouched. [22]
  • Removed my link to LoseTheGame.com, from [The Game (game)] page, even though it is by far the most comprehensive Game-related website. [23]

A look through OhNoItsJamie's contributions reveals a rampant deletionist attitude having no respect for the opinions and knowledge of others.

Response I'm not the only one who has reverted your edits, most of which consisted of link spam for your losethegame.com site (your registration of that domain can be confirmed via NetworkSolutions whois). The spam warning template that's been applied to your talk page clearly states the policy regarding using Wikipedia to drive traffic to your site. The other edits were reverted because they were unsourced and/or unencylopedic. The info about Aphex Twin was reverted because it accompanied a spam link to your site. You're welcome to restore that information (assuming that it's verifiable). I'm sorry if you're upset that the "Pez" article of your that I nominated for deletion was removed via an afd vote (which now has been recreated with no attempt to address issues raised in the afd vote). I stand by my editing history. OhNoitsJamieTalk 03:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I was not spamming links to Lose The Game for personal gain, the google adverts only just pay off the domain name & web hosting. I just thought the links were relevant, most of which were to [The Game (game)] rather than external links. A lot of feedback I have received from my site say they got there through [memes] and [memetics] and are obviously very interested in The Game, especially The Game Tree Project. People that aren't interested won't click on the link, those that are will. Unless there is an excessive number of links on a given page I see no reason for removal. Jonty 21:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The spam policy states:
  • Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia as we drive for print or DVD publication; see the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. If you read WP:Spam, you'll see how your behavior set off spam radar (adding links to your own site to multiple articles). Regarding the superiority of your joint-rolling how-to guide; why not post a comment on the talk page of that article asking users which of the "how to" links seems to be the most informative. I'll respect that consensus. I just don't think that page needs more than one or two "how-to" links. (Notice that I removed a few other links besides yours that seemed to be redundant or adverts). OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Nominates my skin up article for deletion here after saying "You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links." (See above) Jonty 22:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
You created a new article which is completely redundant with Spliff. 95% of your edits seem to revolve around squeezing in external links to your own personal sites. Anyone can look at your contribution history and see that. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I am unsure whether you have read the spliff page, but this contains a rather poor description, presumably of US origin, of how to roll a joint if you have no kingsize rizla (available in every convenience store / garage / service station in the UK), followed by some songs that contain the word 'spliff'. This article has barely changed since its creation in 2001 [24]. Skinning up is a completely different subject to the spliff itself. If you want I can add a section dedicated to songs that include the phrase 'skin up'... Jonty 04:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be forgetting that Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, as #8 in this list clearly spells out. We don't really need the how-to guide at Spliff; we certainly don't need a second one at Skin up that's only somewhat different. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
70% of people in the UK have tried cannabis. Skin up is by far the most common term used in the UK for rolling a joint'. The majority of people in the UK and significant numbers of people in the rest of the world know the term 'skin up. It does not make any sense to remove this article and I believe you are being to hasty in your decision. I can guarantee you that in 10 years this article will be on Wikipedia. Jonty 04:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
This isn't a debate on who uses Cannabis or where they use it, or how popular the phrase "Skin up" is. The relevant issues are (1) Wikipedia isn't an instruction manual and (2) this article is redundant with spliff and (3) most of your edits and articles seem to have the goal of promoting your personal sites. I have no objection with "Skin up" redirecting to Spliff. The Erowid forums or SomethingAwful.com's TCC would be a more appropriate place for your how-to guide (though I'm sure those topics have been covered at great lengths already). OhNoitsJamieTalk 05:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The bottom line

Though you may think that I'm "out to get you," it's just that I'm very much against people using Wikipedia to promote their websites, commercial or otherwise. You'll notice that I added "Skin up" to the Spliff article [25]. I don't doubt that "Skin up" is a common slang term, and as such deserves mention. If the vote for Skin up results in a "Merge" consensus, I disagree with the following statement in the "Skin up" article: Although the term joint is used loosely, it strictly refers to a USA cannabis cigarette containing only marijuana. Circa 1993, a friend of a co-worker in Pittsburgh, PA demonstrated his own blunt-making process to me in which the cannabis was mixed with the cigar's tobacco. The blunt article echos this. I'm far from an expert in this topic, but I suspect that there are a variety of methods of "skinning up" in the UK as well. OhNoitsJamieTalk 02:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Pisky_on_stem.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pisky_on_stem.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 20:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skin up

The result of the deletion debate was "redirect" but you might note that this leaves the content of the article in history if you want to retreive it and put it up on wikibooks. - brenneman{T}{L} 14:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/n/User_talk%7EJonty303_c5b6.html"