User talk:RJASE1/Archive/Apr 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dear RJASE! I dont know whoever is expressing this link (http://getonebyone.googlepages.com/media_h264)as spam. I have noticed the same external links at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264 that contains the various papers on H.264. Apart from that, if I apply for this link to be posted officially in the external Links of this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264) than what steps should I have to take. By no means I want to add my link at this page as spam-link. My link is genuine and surely contains the right content related to the topic. I need support.

Warm Regards Saad

1 AIV
2 Porno (novel)
3 drill instructor
4 WP:AIV
5 Re: From Genesis to Revelation
6 Chai (symbol)
7 Untitled section
8 National Underwear Day
9 Penguin Links
10 Montazh
11 Chai (symbol)
12 why is this being treated as SPAM?
13 Need further clarification because I do not believe I am being treated fairly here, nor do I believe that my link(s) were visited prior to being deleted, criticized and called "spam" ...
14 I'm sorry.
15 National Underwear Day
16 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007
17 Username "Gay Media Matters"
18 WP:POINT accusation
19 Busting cancer
20 Peace offering
21 English
22 re: Doubble Troubble
23 Doubble Troubble Entry
24 Edits to my page
25 warning
26 Expressing my discontent with the way I have been treated here. I am NOT a spammer for crying out loud. I have been acting on good faith and principle and believe that Wiki is mistreating me.
- 26.1 =====================================
27 RFCN on TortureIsWrong
28 Your message
29 User Norcomm
30 Xfer of Discussion TIW to AN from User talk:The Behnam
31 Note from User talk:65.77.71.164
32 RE: Userpage
33 Creed perfume
34 Fatty etc
35 Deep Throat
36 WP:RFCN
37 New here and need your help.
38 Let's Review - Cont
39 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gaillimh
40 Sino-American War
41 Smile!
42 World Cider Day
43 wiki-addiction
44 3K Battery
45 The Healing Project Deletion
46 Electricpolitics.com
47 Chai
48 getonebyone
49 Nice spam catch
50 Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta entry
51 bluebox
52 About the addition you removed
53 Scott Swedorski
54 Please help restore the external links section back to Chinese Astrology page
55 Spam question
56 Re: Rory Cellan-Jones
57 I have restore the External Link section on Chinese Astrology from before April 5.
58 You're famous now
59 Question
60 Desiring God
61 Sean Kennedy Article Deletion Discussion
62 Conflict of interest?
63 Helen Grace tags
64 George Church photo
65 SAIL LABS Technology
66 User:JohnHurt
67 What is spam for "External Links?"
68 John Piper
69 Senang Hati Foundation
70 Talk:The Revival Fellowship#Request for comment

[edit] AIV

He he, you beat me their to AIV reporting User:COOKIEMONSTERCOCK, It turned into an edit conflict and you reported them, I'd just warned them and was just about to lol. Cheers! Telly addict 17:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

RJASE1/Archive/Apr 2007, Its an idea when you are reorting bad Usernames to AIV to leave {{Username-Warn}} their first then list them at AIV as this gives them a chance to contact you if they think it is not a violation. Thanks! Telly addict 19:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello RJASE,

I'm sorry if you feel that my link addition was spam in nature. On the contrary, I believe that for the topic of ice hockey goaltender this site is highly relevant as it is considered a major authority site.

Why don't you visit the site and see for yourself? You could compare it to the other external links too, like this one http://www.goalieforum.com/ It is a forum with fewer than 350 members. The site I was adding has over 6000 members and so I argue that if the topic is to include a link to a community forum, it might as well be the most popular.

You might want to view the last link too.

http://wwwmitchkorn.com/

It's missing a '.' after the www and is highly suspect. This guy offers a goalie school for profit and his site ads little value to the topic of goaltender.

Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to make my case. I love Wikipedia and I just wanted to share something I found.

All the best Tom

[edit] Porno (novel)

The bit I posted on Porno (novel) is actual information involving a film adaptation. It was not spam. I understand why the other thing I posted was removed, but that item has no reason to be removed

I understand - if you want to re-add it, I would leave a note on the talk page explaining the link so it doesn't get cleaned out again, and possibly use a citation template on the article page. FYI, I had removed the links because the addition of links to a particular site on multiple articles made it look like you were a spammer - I would read this paragraph. Cheers - RJASE1 ^Talk 15:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] drill instructor

I'd love to help you argue a case for not accepting a USGovt request, but this isn't the one, if only because we'd probably lose. If something worth fighting for comes along, you can count on me to support it. DGG 23:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - yeah, I agree this case was on the edge, and probably an un-winnable one from the start - I knew it would be an uphill battle and am not too surprised at how the consensus is forming. It just bothers me to see this happen as part of a non-transparent process - it's as if an attempt is being made to erase this particular person. Take care... RJASE1 ^Talk 00:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV

I have declined again to block User:Denajua2hotmail.com. This is not an exact email address, and so, it's not against the username policy; although it contains ".com", it's obviously not being used to promote a company. Take it to WP:RFCN if you disagree. There is no pressing need to block the account, and we shouldn't bite the newbies. Mango juice^talk 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I left a {{UsernameConcern}} on their talk page - will take to WP:RFCN in a couple of days if the user hasn't replied. Cheers - RJASE1 ^Talk 01:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about removing your username complaint from WP:AIV--I had thought it was supposed to go elsewhere, then when looking up where, realized that "blatant" ones belonged there after all. I was going to put it back when I found you had done so already. Matchups 03:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem - we're on the same team. Cheers - RJASE1 ^Talk 03:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

From now on, please explicitly explain how any username you report is a clear violation of WP:U because I'm currently rejecting about 1 in 4 of your requests. Yes, I know we're on the same team, but my priority is to block vandals and identify Shared IP addresses. Borderline usernames that have made NO vandalism edits are wasting my time. -- Netsnipe ► 16:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmm it looks like an honest mistake Netsnipe, care to perhaps explain to him when he misses. So he knows what not to repeat. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to discuss this issue with you before but you declined to respond. User:Killing Is An Art specifically implies violence. And I explained in the yahoo.com username report that it contained a web address and a trademarked name. Please try to achieve some consistency with the other admins working WP:AIV, and I apologize for wasting several seconds of your time. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry RJASE, in my opinion you are not wasting anyones time, the names were on the borderline side and in such cases WP:RFCN can determine if they violate policy better than an admin clearing up the AIV requests. Thanks for all your hard work, it is appreciated.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that, it's easy enough to remove a name from AIV if it does infringe enough, then it canbetaken to RFCN for a second opinion, you do great workwith spam and usernames Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just frustrated. At WP:RFCN it gets pointed out to me that blatant violations are supposed to go to WP:AIV. So I get people bitching at me both coming and going. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that happen to us all RJASE :P? I've taken much of that kind of griping before, as frustrating as it is, do not let that stop you from trying to indicate names which may not abide by policy. As long as you do not nominate names in a manner of bad faith, you are not doing anything wrong.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I was taught never judge a by book by its cover and until an account starts vandalizing, I'd rather not see it on WP:AIV because it does not require immediate intervention. I wish you would assume good faith as some new users want to be creative with their usernames instead of zealously intepreting Wikipedia:Username policy. That policy was mainly written to prevent people from mainly abusing their usernames to advertise, inflame or offend other people. For example, "Killing Is An Art" does imply violence, but against who? Who would feel threatened by it? No one would, because it's an artistic expression. People should be allowed to keep their usernames if it does no harm to the project or to other people. If you disagree with a username, send it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names and to WP:AIV only if there is a implict intention expressed in the username to advertise, inflame or offend. -- Netsnipe ► 16:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Netsnipe, ok that makes sense, but if you read up on this page, it looks like the guidelines for posting on WP:RFCN and WP:AIV are a bit different. As on WP:RFCN it says Grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate usernames should be reported at WP:AIV instead. And it can be said that some of the names that RJASE1 has been reporting are blatant, at least from one point of view. Perhaps we need to reconcile the differences between the instructions on the two pages. This might be something that needs a bit of talking it out with the folks who work on WP:RFCN, and WP:AIV. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it feels like I'm being hard on you RJASE1. I spend the bulk of my time on unblock-en-l and CAT:RFU and I feel like way too many newcomers get bitten and the last thing I want to do is help add to that number right after they've create what they think is a thought-provoking or quirky username. -- Netsnipe ► 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No hard feelings, and I understand your point of view. I honestly am trying to walk the line between not upsetting the folks at either WP:AIV and WP:RFCN. I do agree with Eagle101 that the guidelines seem inconsistent. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, ok lets find a way to resolve this problem, anyone care to take this matter (of page instructions) to the village pump, or should I? While thats going on Netsnipe, perhaps you can put some of RJASE1's bad calls (new ones) on his talk page, and explain to him why you think it should go to WP:RFCN instead? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, disregard. I'm giving up on enforcement of the username policy, it's so inconsistent that it's basically hopeless. Going to find something else to do on Wikipedia, so I can spend more time on constructive work and less time defending myself on my talk page. :P RJASE1 ^Talk 22:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: From Genesis to Revelation

Hi RJASE1, I accept. Thanks for offering to help. Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 03:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Thanks. BGC 10:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good - moving discussion to the case page for now. RJASE1 ^Talk 15:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chai (symbol)

I don't know -- the other guy doesn't seem to be still around. If he had just answered the question that I needed an answer to (instead of mocking and dodging), then there wouldn't have been a real problem. AnonMoos 09:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Untitled section

How is it spamming or inappropriate? Me and my mom both suffer from severe anxiety disorder so I made my website because I don't know of any other site compiling articles and medical research like mine to find a real cure. This disorder completely handicaps me and millions of people around the world. I don't care about search rankings or any of that. All I care about is helping anxiety sufferers find answers and get a real cure.

Hi, I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not a link repository. Please check the policy on external links, thanks. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) - thank you. Cheers - RJASE1 ^Talk 23:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

While anxious, 72.134.41.88 still manages to enjoy movies, hip-hop producers and foreign languages:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#anxietydetective.org + 3 others

Thanks for helping with spam. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Underwear Day

Hello RJase,

I see that its really complicated to post info on Wikipedia. Our copyrighter drafted the National Underwear Day text. We are the founders of nationalunderwearday.com

What can I do to make it live?

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yanafresh (talk • contribs) 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Sorry - if your company is the organizer of this, it's probably a bad idea for you to post content about it per Wikipedia's conflict of interest and spam policies. Wikipedia should not be used for advertising or promotion. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

We hired a writing consultant to make the copy as unbiased as possible. It would be fine by us if you edit the draft we posted. We just want to provide the content about this holiday to users who may be looking for it on Wikipedia.

I read that I can ask Wiki editors/volunteers/community to help post this page. How do I do that when National Underwear Day redirects to Freshpair? Yanafresh 14:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the original article was deleted as the result of an Articles for Deletion discussion, it can't be simply re-posted. The process for having an article such as this recreated is the deletion review process. What I would recommend doing for now is to post the new content in your userspace (such as on the page User:Yanafresh/National Underwear Day) and reference that user page in your deletion review request so that the reviewing editors can see the new content. Let me know if you have any trouble with or questions about the process. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Penguin Links

Hi, I'm new to wikipedia and thought that the Penguin page on www.oceanfootage.com would be of interest to users. This page seems to meet the guidelines. I tried to add it to all of the penguin species pages, but I believe it would have been better placed on the main penguin page, but that page was locked from edits. I hope you will share with me your concerns specifically, and consider unblocking me. Thank you.Freeflowfun 14:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that you were adding links to that site on multiple pages, making it appear that you were a spammer promoting that site. This was compounded by the fact that you ignored four warnings sent to you, and continued to add the links despite the warnings. Your block was only for a short time and has now expired, so you should be free to edit - however, please review the policies on external links and spam, thanks. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montazh

Thanks for talking to that guy on my talk page. Personally, I think he is screwing around. The website he offered, www.montazh.com, is for a Wisonsin cover band that plays bars and parties. The original article claimed the band was from Ariziona, not Wisconsin. Further, the only thing I can find that matches the information you put in the aritcle is this which makes no mention of a hit and no mention of a tour in Germany. Considering that as of 11/2006 they were still in high school I'm not sure how they would have achieved any of these things. IrishGuy ^talk 19:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the legal threat. Shows you exactly how far WP:AGF will take you in some cases, but I suppose we have to keep trying. RJASE1 ^Talk 23:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chai (symbol)

Yes please do, he continued to revert everything I did, I tried many different things, but ultimately he kept just reverting it. I sourced everything I did. Epson291 07:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - moving discussion on this to the mediation case page. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - done, I wasn't sure where to put it. Epson291 22:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why is this being treated as SPAM?

On the Rays Hill Tunnel page, I have twice been accused of spamming the page. What is wrong with the following link ... http://www.rays-hill.com/turnpike/Web_Pages/Rays%20Hill%20Tunnel%20STATISTICS.htm ... this links to a NON-PROFIT, NON-BUSINESS, personal webpage that deals directly with the history of and information about the tunnel.

That is wrong with this link? I am NOT a spammer and do not appreciate being accused of being one.

Thank you. Ray —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rayshillwebmaster (talk • contribs) 18:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I forgot to mention in my previous post regarding the accusation of spamming with regards to the Rays Hill Tunnel statistics and information page that ALL photographs are either the personal property of myself or used with written permission (or where appropriate, are confirmed to be in the public domain). No one sells anything on Rays-hill.com/turnpike, except for a link to a book on Amazon.com which is there only for the benefit of it's author. Mitch Dakelman has been most helpful with regards to the turnpike website.

Please reconsider calling the webpage(s) spam. They are not. Could you please confirm that you personally visited the page(s) in question?

Thank you. Ray

The main problem here is that (in my opinion) you are using Wikipedia to promote your website, as evident from your username. Please read this guideline, which explains why the practice of adding links a particular website is a discouraged practice. This paragraph also refers you to policies on external links and conflict of interest. I encourage you to add material to the article in question, and cite reliable sources, rather than simply adding links to your website from every article even remotely related, which is the modus operandi of a link spammer. Thanks - RJASE1 ^Talk 23:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need further clarification because I do not believe I am being treated fairly here, nor do I believe that my link(s) were visited prior to being deleted, criticized and called "spam" ...

Dear RJASE1:

Please visit the link on the WikiPedia page that follows and explain how it is "different" than the link that I had posted ...

http://www.gribblenation.com/breezewood/laurelhill.html

This one further discusses Laurel Hill Tunnel and does so without citation of specific fact sources. This one was probably posted by the author of that website as well, as was the link referring to Ross Seiber's pictures (of which I have permission to use them on portions of my Laurel Hill pages). I fail to understand why some people's websites can be mentioned and linked to but mine cannot be. Seems on the surface to be a double-standard. There sites are also non-profit and non-business related.

My website is entirely a hobby -- there is no money in it! There is nothing but a lot of time and effort that go into it.

To clarify something else -- I needed to think of a name to use on WikiPedia to register and so I thought up my user name quickly and made it something that I could remember without much difficulty. That is not intended as a means of self-promotion or publicity.

Question: did you REALLY visit the link I posted for Laurel Hill Tunnel or not? If you really visited it before deleting it, you would have found it to be in line with the guidelines that you gave me to read: it is factual, has authentic photos and maps, does NOT sell anything or promote a product or service, all sources that are not "common knowledge" are indeed verified and even mentioned where appropriate and most importantly, the statistics page on my website IS just that -- statistics and further information about the tunnel that is NOT currently included in the WikiPedia entry page.

My website in general is very inclusive of the works of 20+ different authors and people who are directly in the know about the three abandoned tunnels. There is very little "opinion" throughout any of the three tunnel information pages on my website. I can understand your concern to posting links to the "main page" of the site. I did not repost those as I can see your school of thought that they could be confusing to a viewer who is looking specifically for one tunnel but not the history of all of the tunnels on the turnpike. We agree on that part. I went back and linked to pages specifically related only to the tunnel that each WikiPedia page was about. To go back as you suggest and copy information and facts from each of my webpages just to duplicate them to WikiPedia would be a LOT of extra work and there is no guarranty that they wouldn't be pulled down or deleted for some violation.

I would appreciate you taking a little time to evaluate my pages and links based on their own merit and not on a "one size fits all" rule or opinion that you have about my attempts thus far. I am very new to WikiPedia and would like to offer my research and knowledge (of which countless hours of time have been already invested) for a common good. Encyclopedias should be written for the common good of anyone who wants to learn more about a topic such as the rerouted turnpike and the tunnels they left abandoned. If you truly read the links that I have wanted to post, you will indeed see that they are not without factual information, are indeed unopinionated, and are indeed full of useful information that will interest viewers. What really troubles me about this whole matter is that I am trying to add to an encyclopedia more information (which is more factual I might add than some things I have read on Wiki about the three tunnels) and my ideas are being deleted without being personally reviewed. Furthermore, it troubles me to know that in the past, two of the three tunnel pages have had links to my website posted by outside sources. Even though they referenced pages that were not "main pages" and focused on minor information, they have now been deleted as well. They were not posted by me.

If you will not allow me to connect links to existing webpages JUST because they are on MY website, then will you choose to deny a third-party editor on WikiPedia to post links to my website in the future? In the future, if you continue to deny ME the ability to post links to useful pages on my website just because "I" am posting them, does that mean that someone else not affiliated with me or my website will also be denied posting such a link? Pages that offer similiar information to what I was offering are still posted and allowed on WikiPedia, but mine are not. That is a double-standard that troubles me. I really sense that you as a Wiki representative have something against me because you are accusing me of spamming and of self-promotion, without fully reviewing my intentions before judging them. I want a fair chance to add information that I have gathered from many sources throughout the past couple of years and Wiki is becoming a much-used site now. If my links are so violating the rules of the site, them why are other people being allowed to have their sites referenced on the same pages without punishment. My work goes a lot deeper into the subjects, but this is three times now that I have been denied and that is most frustrating. I will be happy to work with you to clarify any concerns, but I honestly do not appreciate the cold shoulder that I feel like I have been given thus far. I don't have to offer my time and energy to helping WikiPedia, but I chose to because I believe in what I taken up as a hobby.

Honestly, I don't need to use Wiki to be a "promotional" for my website ... Yahoo, Google, DogPile, etc -- they all are doing just fine at bringing visitors to my website for me and without asking either. Wiki is an opportunity to promote the abandoned tunnels for visitation and exploration, as well as for bicycling and nature/outdoors kind of people. Naturally such promotion of the tunnels is only for the tunnels and areas that are "legal" to visit. Each of my tunnel pages clearly spells out what is and is not permitted at each of the tunnels and abandonded roadways. To clear up any confusion that may exist: I am NOT in any way connected with the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, the Southern Alleghenies Conservancy (who own two of the tunnels and the adjusting roadway) or the Pike2Bike non-profit commission who oversee the tunnels' future plans. I am just a hobbyist who took an interest in the old tunnels a few years back. There is no self-promotion or money in this for me or anyone who has contributed knowledge and/or pictures to my website. I get no commissions or money from anyone. All expenses of the site are mine personally.

Please take a little time to read into what I am writing here and PLEASE actually visit my page(s) before passing judgment. I do not think I am asking too much here. Please work with me to make this situation right. You are entitled to your opinion, but I should be allowed to voice mine as well. Please reconsider your decision.

Thank you. Ray

PS ... if my user name is the real problem here, I will re-register under a non-assuming name that won't agitate anyone. I am sorry if my quick thinking is what is really to blame here. My intentions are pure and not for self-glory. With all due respect, I take offense to being accused of that.

PSS ... I posted my request to have my "offending" username changed to something that will not offend or give the impression that I am only here for a self-serving, spamming interest which I have been accused of. I am still upset about that accusation. Ray Rayshillwebmaster 06:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.29.195.37 (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

First, thank you for changing Your username per the Username policy. Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, Unfortunately the External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked, which is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. Your contributions to wikipedia under Rayshillwebmaster and IP 71.29.195.37, consist mainly of adding external links and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the majority seem to be external link related only. Spamming is about promoting your own site or a site you love, not always about commercial sites. Links to commercial sites are often appropriate. Links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote your site are not. Hope that helps clears up the policy issues. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right?--Hu12 08:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I still do not agree with the way the representatives of WikiPedia are handling this manner. Regarding my links that I have added -- they DIRECTLY relate to the articles and do not duplicate much of the information within the articles. They are the result of A LOT of research and countless hours of work. They also represent data and pictures gathered from a variety of sources, and most are identified on the web pages themselves unless it is easily obtainable from many sources or common knowledge. The idea of picking apart existing web pages and piecing them together in a totally new format to add them to an existing web page on Wiki does not make good sense. Wiki and most website d not format information the same. I would not be able to import existing JavaScript and ASP into these pages without a lot of modification. Such hours of additional work would not be worth it just to duplicate the existing web pages into Wiki. If you moderators really had reviewed my submissions to Wiki instead of classifying them immediately as "spam" then you would have seen clearly that my submissions do NOT simply "duplicate" other peoples' websites. In fact, those pages that already exist with the same detailed information are simply "linked to" rather than re-worked (e.g. maps, travel information, how do I get to the tunnels?, and so forth). Such information would not have been worth my time to duplicate or re-write in my own words. The request that I am seeing from Wiki representatives here is that I should duplicate existing work just so as not to appear to be a "spammer." What a waste of time and an insult to any hobbyist! Anyone who puts forth a good effort to create and maintain a website should never been pushed aside by Wiki because they believe that re-doing existing Wiki pages is more important to the "rules" than allowing links to existing pages that very nicely would broaden a Wiki visitor's horizon of information. Short articles on Wiki act in the same manner than a 24-volume printed encyclopedia set used to serve: find some basic information on a subject, then look for other resources to further your knowledge. High school and college English teachers would never accept an encyclopedia entry as a complete source. Information is always being updated.

Two final points:

First ... I was visiting Wiki to add to visitors' knowledge base by providing another source of information for their exposure. I was NOT spamming. I was NOT self-promoting. I never claimed my resources to the the "end-all" and final authority. My resources that I attempted to share linked other people's off-site pages together as well, to form a broader well-rounded information source. I want my intentions to be made extremely clear to anyone who cannot figure them out without it being clearly stated. I put up more than what I consider to be a good argument, but RJASE1 did not even answer my argument that I recently restated. Someone else did.

Second ... prior to my attempt to add links to the three key abandoned tunnels Wiki pages, previous links DID EXIST to my web pages. However, they have been removed! Why is this??? I asked this question and no one has bothered to answer me, so I will ask it again ... Bold text''Italic textwhy were those previous links deleted? AND -- if someone else who has an interest in the abandoned tunnels and chooses to visit WikiPedia, sees the ability to post links, and links to anything on or related to my website, ARE YOU PEOPLE GOING TO DELETE THEM? I am not expecting anyone to link to me but if they do, ARE THEY ALSO GOING TO BE ACCUSED OF SPAMMING?Bold text

That is all I have to say on this subject. I truly believe I had the best of intentions and I have met with nothing of opposition over the past week while trying to expand the knowledge base of visitors to Wiki. I do not have the time to re-work my web pages to "fit" them into Wiki, only to find that SOMETHING on them is "wrong" according to the moderators here. One final thought -- throughout the course of the past week, I have been accused via "the rules" of having UNCITED sources on my web pages --- read them again --- all "not common knowledge" sources ARE cited. I got all A's in high school and college English composition classes. I KNOW HOW TO CITE SOURCES PROPERLY!

Thank you! A very discontent Wiki user ... RAY

[edit] I'm sorry.

I do think that my choise in username is inappropriate and if you would allow me I will change the name immediately, I'm just not clear on how to do it. If you could give me clear instructions on the process or just use administrative powers to change it yourself. My choises would be Skip, Jester, Mammoth, or The Black Dash (all my nicknames). Once again I sincerely apologize of my lapse in judgement and hope that you continue to allow me to use the service of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DugeHick (talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

No problem - thanks for the gracious reply. You don't have to change it if you don't want to, the decision at WP:RFCN was to allow it. If you still want to change it anyway, the instructions are here. Cheers - RJASE1 ^Talk 14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not an admin, just an editor like yourself. RJASE1 ^Talk 14:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Underwear Day

An editor has asked for a deletion review of National Underwear day. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Yanafresh 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the review? I looked for it in the log, but couldn't find it. RJASE1 ^Talk 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

An alternative would be to include your information in the article Freshpair. National Underwear Day has been locked in as a redirect per the AfD discussion I already referenced. RJASE1 ^Talk 15:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Username "Gay Media Matters"

Hello and thanks for your welcome to Wikipedia. As per your question, my username and account was created specifically to build, contribute and edit entries pertaining to United States. To my knowledge there is no website related to my username (I checked the .com and .net addresses and nothing came up). I hope this assuages any concern you might have. Thanks again for the welcome message and editing tips! Gay Media Matters 23:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi - the main problem is that username policy prohibits usernames that refer to or imply sexual acts, genitalia, or sexual orientation. I still recommend that you change your username to one that omits the sexual orientation reference. RJASE1 ^Talk 23:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Two questions - separate topics

Has anyone noticed the vandalism for the featured article on the front page about George Washington?

There are normally quite a few people watching the front-page featured article, so vandalism get reverted quickly. The article doesn't get protected per WP:NOPRO. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of the links for the Friends of the Five Day Weekend -- www.fivedayweekend.org -- at what point would a link to the site deserve inclusion in Wikipedia? Just trying to understand the process.

Sorry, addition of links to a site in multiple articles is a discouraged practice - it makes you look like a spammer. The policy on external links explains how to get consensus for adding links to articles. This site is a blog, right? Those normally are not accepted as reliable sources per WP:SPS, though there are some exceptions. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll work on the link policy. Just was overly enthusiastic and kept finding places where it seems the site added something.

[edit] WP:POINT accusation

On Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#Policy_tweak:_excretory_functions, you appear to be accusing me of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If this is true, I'd like an immediate retraction and an apology. If not, you need to clarify exactly what you're saying. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but I felt your inferences (both at WP:RFCN and WT:U) that a ban on usernames involving "breathing" was desired or implied to be both silly and disruptive. Nobody except you ever suggested or proposed that. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT is an extremely serious charge, and absolutely inappropriate. On RFCN, we're discussing the appropriateness of names, and my disagreement with you is not "disrupting wikipedia to make a point". The dictionary definition presented by Cascadia defines excretion in a manner which absolutely 100% includes breathing, and I've drawn attention to that to show why it isn't a good example to use to disallow the user name in question. Your assertion of WP:POINT is, once again, absolutely inappropriate. Before we enter a formal request for comment or external mediation, I'd like to ask once again that you re-read the policy and withdraw your accusation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll go fix my comment if it'll make you calm down. RJASE1 ^Talk 04:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite calm, but I'm concerned that you might be making accusations like this without understanding how serious of a charge it is. If you honestly feel that I've disrupted the project to make a point, the fact that I'm an administrator makes this a pretty darn big deal, and a Chairboy RFC is probably immediately required. I'll gladly participate in any such inquiry, of course, but we're talking about an inquiry into your actions as well, because I'm quite familiar with the policies and confident that you've acted inappropriately by making this claim. I worry that you may have done this to other users less familiar with the relevant policies in the past. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I withdrew the WP:POINT statement, did you want something else? For the record, I did feel your argument was disruptive as an attempt to draw the topic off the point...but you're right, at second thought it was not disruptive enough for a WP:POINT accusation. As for doing it to other editors, feel free to investigate my contribs and RfC away if you feel it's warranted. Later - RJASE1 ^Talk 04:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Butting in, please see my comment. I reacted in somewhat the same way. It seems everywhere lately that I see too many instances of people throwing around the alphabet soup as an expression of ... frustration..., distaste..., and, yes, sometimes simply trying to squelch the discussion. Please use words, rather than tags. Somehow I think a plain "that seems too far-fetched to be useful to the discussion" would be understood much clearer. In fact, it might elicit a better, more useful argument? Shenme 06:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. RJASE1 ^Talk 07:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Busting cancer

Hmm. Thanks for giving the user a chance to change it. I agree that it could be construed as a policy violation, but I'm not sure it really is: it's referring to curing the illness, not the actual illness itself. Anyway, we'll see. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peace offering

I wanted to extend an olive branch after the unpleasantness yesterday. It looks like we disagree on some tenets of username policy; however, looking at your user page, it seems we share an interest in aviation. Anyway, just wanted you to know that I pledge to be civil and to assume good faith. Peace - RJASE1 ^Talk 18:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, let's edit with happiness in our hearts and a quick submit button that will save us from edit conflicts. :) Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English

"Accusation"; "speculation". The differences are significant. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your speculation to yourself unless you can substantiate it somehow, thanks. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Doubble Troubble

RJASE1,

I'm not sure what else I need to do to activate the Doubble Troubble Entry. There is a page for jugglers and on that page there are about 20 jugglers listed. If that list is to be updated and accurate, there are many more jugglers to be added.

Doubble Troubble being one of them. I"m also glad to add many others as well.

Please let me know what else is to be done. I've tried to add the page, and can't seem to find out how to make it stay active. If you read the content of Doubble Troubble entry, it is factual and non-biased.

Thank you.

Nick --LasVegasEditor 01:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LasVegasEditor (talk • contribs) 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC). --LasVegasEditor 01:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doubble Troubble Entry

RJASE1,

Doubble Troubble being one of them. I"m also glad to add many others as well.

Thank you. --LasVegasEditor 01:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks the problem is with notability and with sources. I would try creating the article in your userspace first, making sure it meets the criteria before posting in mainspace. WP:CREATE will get you started. Once again, if this article is autobiographical, I discourage writing an article about yourself per WP:AUTO, but if you're determined to do it, then please do it right. Good luck - RJASE1 ^Talk 01:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to my page

Thanks friend, or as we say here in the Southwest, Amigo. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 03:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

De nada. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] warning

Warm Regards Saad

PS. I added the page again but deleted the entry after seeing the warning ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.147.180.70 (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Expressing my discontent with the way I have been treated here. I am NOT a spammer for crying out loud. I have been acting on good faith and principle and believe that Wiki is mistreating me.

Two final points:

Why were those previous links deleted? AND -- if someone else who has an interest in the abandoned tunnels and chooses to visit WikiPedia, sees the ability to post links, and links to anything on or related to my website, ARE YOU PEOPLE GOING TO DELETE THEM? I am not expecting anyone to link to me but if they do, ARE THEY ALSO GOING TO BE ACCUSED OF SPAMMING? I share WikiPedia sources and links with visiters to my website. I encourage people to visit WikiPedia. But when I want to share information via links from Wiki to a website that I "happen" to have created, then "the rules" are stated without personal consideration given. If you moderators would have truly visited the links before you deleted them, then you would have clearly seen what I am writing about.

One last question: is there ANYONE higher than the moderators of this page to appeal their decisions to???

Thank you! A very discontented Wiki user ... RAY

- If we cannot reach a fair result this time, then I will choose no longer to support WikiPedia and any links and source references on my HOBBY (meaning: non-commerical, for-fun, no-profit-money-involved) website will be deleted and I will discourage further visitors from using WikiPedia because they are so "rules driven" that they are not interested in listening to people who mean well but are shot-down at every turn ** I honestly never thought WikiPedia would be SO

bent on agitating people who mean well and want to help the causes of non-profit organizations and hobbies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dustwind77 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] =====================================

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from an article. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfume

Please ... do not remove content from Wikipedia without typing a good reason in the edit summary field. It is clear to me that you have not looked closely at any of the links removed from this page and, from the looks of things it's not the first time this has happened.

The link was removed per the policies on external links and spam, as has been explained in several edit summaries. Stop spamming the link. RJASE1 ^Talk 05:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not spamming. I have tried to discuss this with you per Site rules but your scripts tell me your actions say otherwise. I will continue to escalate this matter until we can discuss a consensus. Please stop using your script as it is against forum rules. As I can see from other users, this is not the first time this has happened (removing links without even looking at them). Continued usage of said script without discussion will result in an another escalated warning.

Please see Let's review for summary. If that doesn't shame them, nothing will. Well, at least they won't blame "your scripts". :-) Shenme 08:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That was awesome, Shenme. Thanks. RJASE1 ^Talk 12:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFCN on TortureIsWrong

I'm sorry if I implied you were acting in bad faith, but I have noticed you and TortureIsWrong frequently disagree on nominations at RFCN, so I think you might be too involved to be objective in this case. I agree that there is justification to disallow the name, but the nom should have come from someone else. —dgies^t_c 02:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point of view. I probably should have stood back and let someone else make the nom, but done is done. Hindsight is 20/20...anyway, take care and thanks. - RJASE1 ^Talk 02:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Kind of understandable if you consider that Torture conflicts with almost every other regular participant of that board. It is quite a problem. The Behnam 18:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

- - After (finally) visiting your talk page perhaps I understand why you object to my username. I'm certainly no longer surprised in any way by your objections. All I can say is that in my private life I've taken an oath to uphold the US Constitution and my username reflects that. I'm deeply, deeply sorry that you don't seem to appreciate that. TortureIsWrong 07:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm breaking my rule of responding to trolling this once, but you should realize that, in my line of work, I'm far more likely to get tortured than to torture someone else. I have a strong negative reaction to the idea of torture, and don't like being reminded of the concept of torture every time I turn around. RJASE1 ^Talk 15:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

- - I guess I just don't see how commenting when I'm the subject is "trolling." But I understand some people use "trolling" when they're simply disagreed with. TortureIsWrong 18:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

I'm sorry, I misremembered. You're quite right, of course, it was HighInBC to whom I should have referred. I've corrected the comment in question. My apologies again. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Mel - I appreciate the correction, thanks. RJASE1 ^Talk 15:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Norcomm

I saw you Prod Music & Home Entertainment Show which is one of many pages created by User:Norcomm which all relate to Norris-Whitney Communications and is very similar to the username. All these pages seem very spammy and possibly non-notable to me. What do you think? --J2thawiki 15:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I was about to speedy-nominate but there are some assertions of notability in there (or at least can be interpreted as such). RJASE1 ^Talk 15:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear RJASE,

My name really is John Hurt, and I have the web site www.johnhurt.com. I am a Bible software developer, and my contributions will be on Bible related topics.

So that is my real name, and I am not afraid to use it.

Also, if you will do a lookup on Google under "John Hurt", I will be on the first page supplied by that search engine. So, I have a legitimate web presence as John Hurt.

And, I consider myself the "real John Hurt", and like to joke that this British actor fellow has stolen my name.

Regardless, if you feel I should change my login name, I can do so. This is my first login to Wikipedia.

Blessings,

John Hurt

No, that's fine - if you don't mind, I'm going to make a quick disambiguation on your user page. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xfer of Discussion TIW to AN from User talk:The Behnam

Behnam, this is something I think needs to go forward now. He's out of hand. I've been collecting Diffs. on the issue. I've got quite a collection already, if you have any to add, see my sandbox. You'll see them. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 18:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be time for an RfC on user conduct. However, the three of us should stand aside because I think our history with the user would prejudice an impartial discussion. I think a good idea would be to pass the diffs to an uninvolved party for another opinion. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree on that note. I would really prefer not to take on any more flak than what I have already for taking it all, then finally having enough. I've collected several diffs though that may help in the issue. Should they be needed, they are there fore easy access. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 18:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have some of my own, and was going to look at the old username. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the goal of looking at the old username? Potentially pulling it from the recycle bin? Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 18:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just the contribs to see if there was a civility problem there too. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

10-4. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 18:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, if you get some free time look at the history of User talk:MoeLarryAndJesus. Trolling, 3RR, POV, BLP vio. This user has an extremely contentious editing history. RJASE1 ^Talk 19:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

RJASE1, indeed... so how do you plan to proceed? Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 19:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I thank you all for your fair-minded and civil interest in my activities. I know what you're doing is in no way related to the disagreements we've had in various forums. Cheers! TortureIsWrong 19:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I had a rocky start here under my old username, but I think if you look at my contribs on the editing side under this name I've been very scrupulous. But once again, thanks for your interest! TortureIsWrong 19:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

RJASE, I think we've hijacked Behnams talk page enough. Would you mind if I ctrl+C/Ctrl+V this over to my talk page with a link to the subsection? Or yours, either way it doesn't matter. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 19:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Move to my talk page, if you don't mind. RJASE1 ^Talk 19:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please verify that ALL comments are as is before I delete. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 19:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cascadia, I'll start putting some info together for an RfC on user conduct. I'll make sure to get an un-involved admin to take a look at things before submitting. TIW, please feel free to watchlist my talk page (if you haven't already) so you don't think anyone's talking about you behind your back. RJASE1 ^Talk 19:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course some might say that the civil thing to do would have been to post that invitation on my talk page when this little tea party began, but I suppose you were under no obligation to reveal that you were, in fact, "talking behind my back." Not that there's anything wrong with that, necessarily, though I never do it myself. Cheers! TortureIsWrong 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was pretty sure you had all of our talk pages watchlisted. RJASE1 ^Talk 19:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(EC) My very intention was to notify you when it was decided to go forward. I apologize if it seems I was trying to do something behind your back, I just wanted to make sure all of my ducks were in a row first. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 19:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course you were doing something behind my back, Cascadia. That's okay, even if it's the sort of thing Dick Cheney would do. No need to apologize. Cheers! TortureIsWrong 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Some friendly advice - when you know that someone is complaining about your civility, it's probably not a good idea to escalate the incivility - i.e. I think you're kind of in a hole right now, so you should probably stop digging. The outcome I would like to see is for you to become a civil, productive editor, not for you to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. RJASE1 ^Talk 19:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I was doing just that when someone decided to try to kill my twice-affirmed username and embroiled me in a time-killing dispute that has seemingly gone on for a week, with threats to continue it even longer. I hardly think I'm the only one riding the escalator here - but at least I'm willing to admit that I'm doing so.TortureIsWrong 19:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In reference to the above comments - I'll state that I'll reply to constructive comments here, but I reserve the right to ignore or remove comments that are blatant trolling (I know you're aware of this policy, because you've been blocked for it before)...in other words, I'm not going to reply to blatantly provocative or argumentative posts. Nobody is threatening you - I simply want you to be civil and to stop your disruptive editing. I wish we could solve this with a simple conversation, but your previous interaction with editors who have tried to advise you doesn't leave me with much optimism. RJASE1 ^Talk 20:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anyone had threatened me - merely that the discussion on my username seemed likely to continue even after it had been approved twice. I also see no "disruption" in addressing matters on discussion pages. That's what they're there for. Disagreement is not disruption. TortureIsWrong 20:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so that's how you do that! (Re: Formatting.) I had no idea. As for the formatting issue, using one method works best for me because I'm relatively new here and not used to the system and I type slowly - but post a lot here and in other forums.TortureIsWrong 20:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

TIW, this is the kind of edit I mean by disruption. It was an apparent political POV with little or no relevance to the policy discussion underway. I can't see any purpose to it other than to disrupt the conversation. RJASE1 ^Talk 20:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah. So any and all asides on a discussion page are "disruption"? Come on. I think it was wholly relevant, and it was my way of pointing out that I thought your claim that every time you saw my user name you thought about torture was disingenuous. We both know that I'm not the only one who thought you brought my name up in RFCN to make a POINT, and not because it caused you any real distress. TortureIsWrong 20:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

RJASE1, just making sure that you know I'm not ignoring the discussion. I'm just refraining from speaking too much. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. RJASE1 ^Talk 20:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Gosh. I don't know where to begin with this user. It might help to look at the civility warnings on his (unedited) talk page; he has shown that he doesn't consider policy important and that he views WP as a personal battleground, amongst other thing. Of course, his conduct at AN/I and the RFCN page & talk is bad, and also at Talk:Byron Coley, where he contested that adding personal commentary is unsourced POV, and even after I got a third opinion from Bignole he started fighting with Bignole. I believe Bignole characterized him well here [1], and TIW answered likewise [2]. But considering this unedited version of Talk:Byron Coley [3], TIW's accusation is completely unwarranted. Anyway, I'm going to provide actual diffs after I attend to some RL things, but yes, it is about time that this user is held accountable for his constant incivility and disruption. Looking over his contribs shows that he has done little aside from trolling with his account, making only trivial or poor edits to actual articles. For anyone seeking diffs his contribs page is where to start, in my opinion. Really, if this was a noob he would have been blocked a long time ago, and I honestly don't know why he was only blocked for three hours, after which he took his disruption up a notch. Good idea in preparing for an RFC. The Behnam 22:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have stated my belief that The Behnam's edit of my contrib on the Talk:Byron Coley page was of questionable good faith already. Further, I removed some of my comments which could arguably be seen as uncivil from that talk page after being asked to do so by another editor. The Benham and Bignole chose not to do so. The incivility went both ways. I have done something about my role in that. The Benham has not reciprocated.TortureIsWrong 22:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You haven't brought any issues of 'faith' to me yet, despite the fact that I told you that you should several times. And I don't see how Bignole and I have been uncivil in that dispute so I don't really know what reciprocation your expecting. If you want an explanation as to why I ended up at that article, you can ask me on my talk page. The Behnam 23:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

All, I'm away from the computer for a while, but please feel free to continue the discussion here as long as you like. Cascadia, thanks for the reply below. RJASE1 ^Talk 23:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 23:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

RJASE1, how goes the RfC? If I can be of any assistance, please let me know. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 19:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note from User talk:65.77.71.164

Dear RJASE1 -- I was NOT SPAMMING in any sense of the term - I was simply trying to add a link to the Medicine Park entry of external links that would offer people more information about our little town, it's history, its restoration and what it has to offer. I apologize that it was taken that way and hope that you'll reconsider.

Please sign your comments with four ~~~~'s, and create a new headline for each new message. Thanks Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 23:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi - the links were removed because they were commercial in nature. The message I left on your talk page should have explained the policies on external links. If you weren't intending to promote those particular commercial sites, I apologize for the insinuation, but I don't believe those links were proper for the article. Don't hesitate to contact me for additional clarification. RJASE1 ^Talk 23:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Userpage

I'm doing some experimentation. I'm good at straight out and out HTML on a webpage, however, getting things to work here where I don't have total control is something I need to work on. It'll be back up in a while. I know some people say "You shouldn't edit your userpage so much, it isn't myspace", but to me, since I don't have time to do heavy research right now, it gives me a chance to, for lack of a better term, "Blow it all to hell" without actually ruining an article, etc. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 03:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I see - cool. Keep in mind I might steal some of your stuff once you put it up, though. :) RJASE1 ^Talk 03:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, It's back up. Feel free to plunder! Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 04:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creed perfume

Do not remove our link from the Creed Perfume page as we are their West Coast representatives. Your actions are irresponsible as you did not even bother to check to see that we are the authorized distributor and information source for this line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.108.150.157 (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fatty etc

There have been two of those today, both of which I did remove. It's a tough call, but I think they are just barely acceptable. I wouldn't protest if they were blocked, but I also don't think they're worth much of our time discussing them until they actually start to edit a lot. Academic Challenger 21:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the feedback. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deep Throat

Perhaps the article Deep Throat would interest you. It is not just a sexual act, but the alias of a historical figure. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I already apologized for that. What can I say - maybe I just need to take a break from vandalism for a while. Thanks, brother. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFCN

Sorry, didn't mean to make your nominations be anything other then what you intended. Just went to remove them but see you have already. I did mean to decline them on WP:AIV as not meeting "usernames which require urgent blocks", but didn't want to lose your work. RFCN is being debated at MFD right now, but seems to work at least some of the time. You can relist these on one of the WP:AN's if you'd like (though you may get refered to RFCN). Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

RJASE I am waiting for your feedback about the query I posted few days back.

It was: warning Dear RJASE! I dont know whoever is expressing this link (http://getonebyone.googlepages.com/media_h264)as spam. I have noticed the same external links at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264 that contains the various papers on H.264. Apart from that, if I apply for this link to be posted officially in the external Links of this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264) than what steps should I have to take. By no means I want to add my link at this page as spam-link. My link is genuine and surely contains the right content related to the topic. I need support.

Warm Regards Saad

[edit] New here and need your help.

How can I contact you via email? thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omegalion (talk • contribs) 19:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Via the "e-mail this user" link in the toolbox to the left. RJASE1 ^Talk 19:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's Review - Cont

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:12.198.8.203#Let.27s_review

Due respect. You all have the IP Address detective skills of idiots. Had you done your homework you would have noted that the IP addresses that created the links in question were done at a hotel in Portland and the spammers are using home ISP's in California.

You are abusing your privileges with sub-standard skills. Please do not act again until you are sure of your actions. Further abuse of privileges will result in further warnings. You are not Wikipedia and you, from what I can tell from your talk pages, are ruining people's experiences. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.198.8.203 (talk) 05:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gaillimh

You may wish to review and possibly certify this. If you intend to reply to me, it'll have to be on my talk page despite your notice :) --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 05:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sino-American War

I'm still new to wikipedia so I won't do it myself, however I'd really appreciate it if you would look into restarting the Afd on Sino-American War. It clearly doesnt belong on wikipedia and is an even more outrageous case of crystal ball than the Iran War page. Thanks. --Westolly 14:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smile!

Saturation2 ^{If you are bored, talk to me, or you can look at my edits here. Sign here if you love me.} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Sorry about that COI thing.. has it been resolved? Is there anything else that I need to do? RickSeymour 22:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem - just to play it safe I would refrain from editing articles related to yourself. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Cider Day

Hi. Not sure why you have deleted World Cider Day. I am a small cider presser in Devon, England who is trying to make a living, and have succesfully sold more cider today than ever before due to the declaration of World Cider Day. If the impeteus of the people doesnt define Wikipedia what does?

Actually, I didn't delete anything, I just flagged it for admin attention. The article had no assertion or proof of notability that would merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I only just own a computur let alone understand the full meaning of Wikipeida. I just think it's harsh that you leap on an guy trying to build a following around a modern interpretation of something that has happened in Crediton, Devon, England. For hundreds of years. What do you accept as reasonable proof? and who made you police? or are you not policE? it's been a long day and we have all been feeling passionate about making world cider day more widely known to the world.

Hi, what you need is some reliable sources to establish notability. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wiki-addiction

To paraphrase Michael Corleone, I try to get out and they keep pulling me back in :) I keep seeing military articles in dire need of fact checking or correction, and I can't help myself. I cut my watchlist down to 200 items, and I'm still busy on here :) --Nobunaga24 01:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You asked about Electric Politics. Yes, I'm the guy who does these interviews. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have if you email me (address on the site).

[edit] 3K Battery

Hi, I appreciate the comments regarding 3K Battery article, and I've improved the article. Although one might not think that the company is worthy of a Wikipedia entry, they play an interesting role in the Thai boxing scene, in that the fighters use the name of the company as their last name. This article is used as reference for all of he 3K Battery fighters so folks understand what it means.

--Jackboogie 02:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Jack - yeah, I saw the improvements to the article. I found the additional information fascinating. Wouldn't it be interesting if American athletes did the same thing? Anyway, great work, thanks a lot. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Healing Project Deletion

Editors,

Please repsect I am new to the Wikipedia Community. I have reviewed your comments and can assure you of the following:

I did not intend to promote The Healing Project article in manner that could be construed as spam. This is not a commercial entity and never will be.

I will endeavor to make adjustments to web pages to better reflect the organization's development and more specifically its accomplishments.

As far as whether the organization is suitably distinguished, I would encourage you to review the qualifications of the members of the scientific board. They represent some of the finest practitioners, clinicians and researchers in chronic disease. Addtional members are being recruited to make contributions in Autism, Oncology and CNS diseases.

The organization is taking a radical step away from conventional treatment models and the article will, in the near future, reflect its drive implement modern search and community technology to serve the chronically-ill. This functionality is in development and will be annouced shortly. It is still a young entity. I only began supporting the group a few months ago. However, as the CEO of a medical technology company, I can say I expect we will produce great things.

I would hope the editors would grant a stay as we are attempting to particpate with worthwhile entries in good faith.

Don367 18:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Don, I totally believe in your motives and that you're acting in good faith - the concern is with notability. Has the organization been discussed or reviewed by the media? This is the info you need for a Wikipedia article. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electricpolitics.com

Since the Wiki cookie keeps telling me about your messages, here's a more detailed reply, though as I noted above, I'll be more than happy to respond to whatever questions you have via email.

First of all, note that the interviews span a period of over a year. I do one interview a week, most of which are not suitable for Wiki. Thus in posting the ones that are, I've filled out a long time period -- you should not expect me to continue posting links at that rate because new interviews won't happen at that rate.

Secondly, the links I'm posting are valid information. I very much doubt that you'll find many similar items elsewhere. Audio interviews with General Paul Van Riper, who won the wargame Millennium Challenge? Nowhere else. With senior retired CIA analysts? Sparse. With Helen Caldicott, the anti-nuclear activist? Not many, and her publicist, who was surprised she'd talk with me, told me she isn't doing many interviews these day, certainly not of the length she did with me.

I've recorded, for example, an interview last week with Shashi Tharoor, who just stepped down as UN Undersecretary General for Public Affairs, and who was India's candidate for Secretary General to succeed Kofi Annan late last year, coming in second out of seven. I'd like to plan to post a Wiki link to that. Do you think it's newsworthy and of interest to people who use Wiki? I do, but you should decide for yourself...

And, by the way, since posting those links (looking at my web stats) I've had a steady, though small, stream of visitors from Wiki. Most seem interested in my interview with Gabriel Kolko, but they are looking at half a dozen others as well. Again -- I think these conversations are a unique, valuable resource, but I'm not going to argue with you about it if you disagree.

George

George, like I said, my concern is with the conflict of interest inherent in linking to your own site. Has your site been reviewed or cited by any notable publications? I'm happy to work with you on this. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. I've been doing these shows every week since early January 2006. Haven't missed a week! I guess the only reference I could produce is the quality of guests. If you'd like to contact any of the guests and ask them whether they think their conversations merit inclusion on Wiki I'd be more than happy to provide you with their email addresses.

Hmmm - the people you are interviewing are clearly notable. The problem is that adding links instead of information tends to fire up the anti-spam folks. This is what I recommend - incorporating information instead of links. What I mean by that is, if the podcast contains a quote or piece of information about a person or event that is notable, you include that information and cite the podcast as a source. WP:CITE contains the citation guidelines, and Template:Cite podcast would be the citation template that applies here. I'd be willing to help you with it, time permitting. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

How many interviews have you heard that go for an hour or an hour and a half with some personality, with no ads, on substantive subjects? Maybe Charlie Rose, or Fresh Air, but not many. Why don't you try listening to a couple of these for yourself? My point is that they are not sound-bite friendly, and deliberately so. A large part of what I do, and what I think is in fact more important than finding out what a particular person thinks, is to learn something about how they think about things. What's your advice for summarizing that in a piece of information??--Georgekenney 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chai

Sure thing Epson291 21:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] getonebyone

i have already sent u this message: Dear RJASE! I dont know whoever is expressing this link (http://getonebyone.googlepages.com/media_h264)as spam. I have noticed the same external links at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264 that contains the various papers on H.264. Apart from that, if I apply for this link to be posted officially in the external Links of this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264) than what steps should I have to take. By no means I want to add my link at this page as spam-link. My link is genuine and surely contains the right content related to the topic. I need support.

Warm Regards Saad

PS. I added the page again but deleted the entry after seeing the warning ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.147.180.70 (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Nice spam catch

When I saw your revert here, I looked at the contributions of Petyourdog (talk · contribs) and it made me laugh out loud. This person was obviously three articles into an alphabetical list of all dog breeds before you gave them a friendly notice and they stopped. Nice catch.

I've got Afghan hound on my watchlist, but it looks like I should have had Affenpinscher on there! -- Satori Son 17:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta entry

Hello RJASE1:

Please, review my entry once again. MASSOBUSA.org and The Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra are both non profits - Non Violent entities. We exist to educate people on what is happening in our part of the world.

We do not SPAM.

MASSOB and MEND are both organizations that are dealing with the same issues in our part of the world albeit following different paths. It is our belief that the world has to know about both organizations, their similiarities and differences. Please review this article below and alternatively a google search for massob+mend should be extremely illuminating to you: http://nigeriaworld.com/articles/2006/apr/242.html

In the event that you and wikipedia still feel that our posting is SPAM, then please provide us with a means of challenging your position on the wikipedia forum.

Always a pleasure.

massobusa

Hey there - sorry for the belated reply. If you are associated with the site, you really shouldn't be linking to it - please see our policies/guidelines on conflict of interest, external links, and spam. If you feel the links are worthy of inclusion, I would drop a note on the articles' talk pages and let neutral editors decide if the link is worthy of inclusion. RJASE1 ^Talk 14:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bluebox

Mark here from the Blue Box - I don't understand why you are deleting my links. We are a Creative Therapy Charity based in Limerick Ireland and we are doing some important work in schools with Music, art and play therapy.

Can you explain to me what I am doing wrong and aid me in getting our site into these articles.

Thanks

Mark. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thebluebox (talk • contribs) 07:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Mark - while I don't doubt your good faith, the article on Art Therapy, for example, is there to describe the concept, not to serve as a directory of all individuals or groups that are involved with it. Also, since you are associated with the site you are linking, you have a conflict of interest and really shouldn't be linking to it; you risk give the impression that you are trying to use Wikipedia for advertising or promotion. What I recommend is to add your link to the article talk page, with a description, and let other editors decide if it is worthy of inclusion in the article. RJASE1 ^Talk 12:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

RJASE - thanks for the pointers

[edit] About the addition you removed

Hi,

I read the page about not complying to wiki rule. However, I really do not see the specific "against the rule" item that fit the addition you just removed yesterday. Would you please elaborate?

I do see that the owner should not post the link since it is a conflit of interest. May be this is what you are referring to? If this is the case, would you at least look at the site first to decide if it is good enough for inclusion? May be you could include it. Thanks!

I prefer to be unknown for now. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.134.136.2 (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

By the way, this refers to the Chinese Astrology site. I have seen the site referred in the external link since last year. After so many months and it was still there; this sort of proves that that link has something legitimate going on, else someone would have deleted it early on. Well, that is until someone decided to replace all external links with his/her spams this month. Just do a little history research yourself and you will see!

[edit] Scott Swedorski

Hi Not sure if I am posting this correctly. Regards to the Scott Swedorski listing, only bio data was added. The information is still the same. There were a few references to projects I worked on and I included the urls to those sites.

Updating biographical data is generally not a problem, though Wikipedia is generally pretty strict about requiring sources. If you add links to your projects, many people see that as spamming or self-promotion. What the guidelines recommend is that you add that information to the talk page of the affected article, and let neutral editors decide whether it should be included. Also, don't forget to sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~), Cheers - RJASE1 ^Talk 02:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. How do I go about getting the two notices at the top now removed from the article?

Scott Swedorski

An editor from one of the task forces will come by and check the article to see what's needed. Shouldn't take too long. If you know of any print sources that can be used for the article, I would put them on the article's talk page. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The only changes that I made personally was my picture, birthday and occupation. Should that be removed? Not sure how to prove that information without scanning a birth records.

Occupation can be found at www.coffeecup.com/about

The sentence referring to FALCON is still the same, I only placed the url to that Website, which could be removed.

Scott Swedorski

The biographical info is fine, since I really don't think anyone would dispute your version of it. :) The main thing we will want media sources for is the awards, etc. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

for the lifetime achievement award, here is the source http://www.siavoting.com/lifetime.php

Scott Swedorski

OK, just put a note on the talk page of Scott Swedorski with that link and a brief explanation of what it is. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

sorry for all the messages. for the OISV article, all I added was the corporate information. I think maybe the links for the OISV sponsors that I added in maybe the cause.

You can find all of our sponsors at www.oisv.com in the bottom footer.

the the main people, scott swedorski, jeff welch and j Cornelius can be verified at www.oisv.com/about

Scott Swedorski

OK, sounds good. Thanks, sir. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please help restore the external links section back to Chinese Astrology page

--71.111.59.247 05:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I have checked the history of changes to the page. The external links section (see any history before April 5) has been there through months of users' inspection and I consider them legitimate links. Those are missing now.

I also see that due your fight with a link spammer since April 5, you have in directly cause all those links to be removed.

Personally I believe removing those links is not fair to readers who wish to learn more about astrology.

Would you please help restore those external links that was there before April 5. I do not wish to do that myself because I am afraid you would have label me as a spammer as well.

Thanks!

[edit] Spam question

Now how is it that another public member is adding external links to all of these pages and his links are not being marked as spam as mine are? Pages: 1800 Club; MarinaBlue; Midtown Miami; Ten Museum Park; 900 Biscayne Bay? Any insight would be appreciated —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.143.235 (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

A good essay on the subject is WP:FISHING, it explains it better than I could. I'm sure the other links will be removed in time, as well - or you could even do it yourself. RJASE1 ^Talk 14:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Rory Cellan-Jones

Hi - don't worry about it! His first change was so subtle that it's unsurprising that you didn't revert, and I have no doubt that your COI warning didn't prompt him to falsify the page further - he would have already had it planned. When his "take that" version was shown on the news, he still had the orange bar of death (new messages), so wouldn't have seen your COI warning by then. Thanks for helping with the COI reports - keep up the good work! Mart inp23 12:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have restore the External Link section on Chinese Astrology from before April 5.

Hi RJASE1,

Do not remove my recovery as SPAM. Due to your fight with a link Spammer since April 5, you have help the spammer removed all useful external links from this page. Check the history before April 5th first before quick on your GUN to label this as spam!

I have already placed request previously on your page and you did not response. Do not remove my recovery until you give good reason as I will continue recover what you have removed. Please don't be a CARELESS POLICE!

Sincerely, Concern Reader —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.59.247 (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Sorry I didn't have time to reply earlier - I replaced the links with a link to the Open Directory project. If you have additional links, I would submit them to DMOZ for linking from there, as opposed to linking directly from the article. RJASE1 ^Talk 14:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi RJASE1,

I do not agree with your replacement. If your reasoning is correct, then may be I should go ahead and replace all external links on all WIKI pages with DMOZ link? What/Who gives you the right to use that particular link in place of all other link?

Furthermore, even the DMOZ's wiki page has external links. Why don't you go there and remove all the external links and replace it with DMOZ link? If you are such a good Police, how about you simply go visit all the pages and replace all links with DMOZ's?

It is apparent that you action spoils the whole basket of links. I would say majority of them already PASSED the link spam tests. Why don't you spend a little time of your own and weed out the suspicious links instead of all of them?

I am putting those link back.

Sorry, I think the dmoz link is much better. Wikipedia should not be used to promote particular sites. If you want any of those particular sites indirectly linked, I would submit them to the Open Directory Project for listing. Cheers - RJASE1 ^Talk 21:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because one volunteer write a method in WPSPAM page does not means it it is the law. It may be commonly accepted by SPAM police, but not all users. It may be simple, but also could give impression of laziness and total irresponsibility! If external links are so bad, why even allow any links? Why not just remove them all?

No, we should NOT be linking to every Chinese astrology site from Wikipedia. We all knows the SPAM policies. Isn't this what all SPAM police and all user responsibility to weed thourgh the links?

Use a little common sense when using the linkfarms suggestion. When there > 10 new spam entries per day and the links are hugh, linkfarm suggestion may make sense. When there are only a few links (<10) and there are no frequent new spam insertion in the page, then consider just remove that particular spam that appear instead of removing all the links that have been around for > year. You made a mistake, admit it, then recover your mistake. Do not cover your back with "commonly supported" excuse!

[edit] You're famous now

FYI: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/11/trust_nobody_on_the_internet/
--A. B. ^(talk) 23:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Maybe I can make some extra money by putting Google ads on my userpage! RJASE1 ^Talk 03:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Where can I propose a new template? Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 23:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm - in the past I've just made them without asking - what did you have in mind? RJASE1 ^Talk 03:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Desiring God

Why do you think anything from DesiringGod.org is in violation of WP:EL. I agree that it might be in some of the places you removed it, but not all of them. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Trying to clean up after a COI linkspamming campaign by Desiringgod (talk · contribs), who has already been blocked. I'm leaving the reference links alone, but removing the ones from "External Links" sections which seem designed to tunnel readers away from Wikipedia. If the links are in fact justified, feel free to put them back, but I would drop a note on the talk page or explain in edit summary that they were re-added by a neutral editor. From what I can see so far, there's been a lot of COI editing by members or supporters of this organization, and it's probably going to take a while to de-spam this situation. Cheers - RJASE1 ^Talk 15:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That user seems to have only a few edits (or are you working from his/her IP address also?). The link in Five points of Calvinism, for instance, has been there for quite some time. I'd prefer that you not delete these links, many of which are useful and no worse/often better than the ones surrounding them, unless they were specifically added by this user. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not planning on re-adding them, as I'm not really a good judge on their usefulness - however, I'm not sure what justification under WP:EL or WP:A would recommend inclusion of links to these sermons - especially considering WP:SPS. As far as the other links go, that shouldn't be a justification to include more links. If the other links suck, feel free to remove them also. RJASE1 ^Talk 15:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the case of the links from Jonathan Edwards, they were for primary source material by Edwards himself (the resolutions) and a lecture on Edwards' life given at a conference. Considering that Piper has studied Edwards considerably and published on him, I don't think those are in violation of WP:EL. Haven't examined all the other stuff, though I'm sure there is some dross and silver mixed in there. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it in your capable hands. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Kennedy Article Deletion Discussion

Hello. I believe your labelling my comments indicating that my account is single-purpose is a personal attack, especially as my account is so new, and that this labelling is irrelevant to what I have to say in the discussion.OldMixcoatl 17:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no attack intended. From my experience, use of the spa template is accepted practice in deletion discussions. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest?

Hi -

I don't have anything against lowracer - all I want is for the article to be website neutral: no reference to anyone's website.

If you want details as to why he's after me, I can give that, but I don't think it's germaine to the situation at Wikipedia.

Let me know how I can help. John E. Chambers 01:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Give me a little while to look into the edit histories of the article and the dispute participants. In the meantime neither of you should be putting warning templates on the other's page over a content dispute (just a matter of etiquette). Hopefully a third party can resolve this. It sounds like you two might have some off-wiki issues, hopefully we can keep them off Wikipedia. You did the right thing by coming to a third party for an opinion. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem - he's got issues with me. I have none with him. I only put that warning there because I was told to yesterday on the other talk page.

I want to be a help to Wikipedia, not a hindrance... John E. Chambers 01:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate your motives, thanks. I'm looking at the histories now. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

- I made some changes early on without fully understanding Wikipedia rules. Sorry about that - I was just trying to balance his obvious bias toward his website. I also improved the article, but he never thanked me. ;)

I'll check back tomorrow. Going home now. Thanks for helping. Oh - and thank YOU for your service to our country! 01:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No issues here, just the facts, as you will see from the editing record. John E. Chambers deleted the entire article at one point, replacing it with four sentences. He claimed to own the article at that point, not realizing that he gave up rights to it once he published it here, an honest mistake, granted. He runs a for-profit website (chamberstoves.net) where he sells the reference materials that would complete this article. There is a non-profit website that serves as information repository only, to which I have linked the references from parts of the article as they are not available anywhere else on the internet. He has deleted the entire reference section, most probably seeing it as competition for his own document sales. The article badly needs references, that much is agreed. We are both trying to get information on chambers ranges known, but he would like it to be on his terms and for his own profit. The owners of vintagechambers.com are making this information available for free to all. I agree that a neutral third party is a good idea but frankly, how do we know that you are not buddies with John E. Chambers (not his real name of course) in real life? We'll await your judgement but if it seems biased toward Mr Chambers here, we will appeal to other neutral parties on Wiki. And if Mr. Chambers vandalizes the page again by deleting entire articles or deleting entire sections, he will be blocked from editing and reported to the admins here. He has as his motive not the furtherance of Wikipedia, but the lining of his own pocketbook by selling the old documents. Lowracer 03:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope you can assume good faith on my part - I only heard of this issue because I monitor the talk page of a WP:WPSPAM admin who was involved with this article earlier - Veinor. I can tell you that I never heard of a Chambers stove before today - it seems an intriguing piece of technology, but my technological interests lie in in a different area. I've had no association with John E. Chambers before today. I promise to take a detailed look at this tomorrow morning, and I will post an opinion on the article's talk page. In the meantime, please do not engage in revert-warring, this behavior can get you blocked. Also, I recommend that each of you review the conflict of interest policy, because my preliminary read is that it applies to both of you. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify my position on this issue:

1. I have NO interest in having a link to ANY website here, be it one of my own or any other, for that matter - my desire is that the article be website neutral, as that seems to me to be the best compromise.

2. Literature for sale or for free is not the issue here for me: it's WHY the article is on Wikipedia. If, in fact, it is for informational purposes only - as well it should be in my estimation - then it should not promote anyone's personal website. Instead, it should just present the facts, that's it. If it is here to promote someone's website - for whatever personal reason they may choose - it should not be allowed.

3. You should know that when he sayd, "...but if it seems biased toward Mr Chambers here, we will appeal to other neutral parties on Wiki", he means: "If you don't let me have it MY way, I'm going to cause trouble."

4. I'm not here to try to cause trouble - I'm only asking that the article be fair, balanced, and neutral, as all printed encyclopedia's are.

5. I'm perfectly willing to let this matter rest with the authorities here at Wikipedia - whatever your decision is, I will gladly abide by it. You'll get no fights from me. Sincerely yours - John E. Chambers 04:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

OK I'm chillin. Ready to bury the hatchet here, the wiki-war isn't worth ruffling feathers over. Seems like there has got to be some compromise. Removing the references makes this document a whole lot weaker though. Lowracer 04:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

RJASE1: What did you decide about this? I noticed that the links to his website are still there. No pressure - just understandably curious. John E. Chambers 16:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, got tied up with something else - I'll get to it, I promise. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem - take your time. As I said, I want to be cooperative. Any questions you have, let me know. John E. Chambers 16:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Point of clarification, it is not my website. Lowracer 21:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, guys - I'm sorry. One of my daughters has her senior prom and I kept getting drafted to do stuff. We just finished doing the whole picture thing and got her out the door with her date. I have one other case to work that should only take a few minutes and then I'll be on the Chambers stove article, I appreciate your patience. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

RJASE1 - thanks for assisting in a peaceful resolution to this problem. Sorry to have had to bother everyone. John E. Chambers 23:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No sweat, have a good one. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

RJASE1 - yes thanks for the resolution. It allows us to keep the references but avoid pointing to any websites. I'm going to sell my Chambers range this weekend. Dang things are too controversial! ;-) Thanks for your service and watch your six! Lowracer 00:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, brother - will do. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helen Grace tags

Hello RJASE1. In a recent comment at WP:COI/N, you noticed the removal of 'unreferenced' tags from the articles created by Helen Grace. Did you keep any notes of that? (If so that info could be added to the COI entry, because it's evidence). I did a quick look but didn't come across any. Also do you have an opinion about Blofeld's edits? I noticed someone reverting one of his edits but didn't know the significance. I thought he might have some influence with her. Thanks! EdJohnston 21:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is one example - I think there might be more. I'm working a mediation but will look some more later. I've had some dealings with Ernst before - he does good work with newbies and with film articles, particularly foreign and lesser-known films. But it doesn't look like this particular editor is heeding his advice. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Church photo

Hi RJASE1. I changed the photo to 175px, so that it would display on my screen less than 2 inches wide. (After looking at another scientist's page). See if you agree this is better. EdJohnston 01:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

MUCH better. Thanks! RJASE1 ^Talk 01:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SAIL LABS Technology

Hi Tim!

I stuck to the conflict of interest rule, the only thing I did is take the discussion link suggested by Eisber and pasted it over: This is his entry from the deletion discussion: Keep Well, Sail Labs isn't a BIG company, but they are doing interesting stuff. If the article stays, they should be linked to Hidden Markov Model and master thesis which is my masters thesis I did there and I don't work there anymore. (eisber) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sail_Labs_Technology I do not think that this deserves the conflict of interest flag, however if you still think so then I will delete that piece, if you are so kind to unflag it.

Thanks,

mark Desertson 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed, cheers. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, stepping real careful on Wikiturf! ;-) Desertson 22:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:JohnHurt

Hey, just had a quick scan of the username issue and to be honest I think the username's fine as far as being linked with the actor. What I do have an issue with is the fact that it's spam for this website, have you seen the users userpage? It even links to it! If I was you I'd bring it up at RFCN and clearly state it's spamming for the website and it's the same name as an actor, that might beef the case up a bit!! That sound OK? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about the John Hurt thing - he doesn't seem to be doing any editing or spamming since creating his account. I was really just using it as a counter-example - the real problem I've been working with lately is famous/notable people apparently editing their own biographies without verifying their identity. George Church and Scott Swedorski were a couple of instances of this recently. RJASE1 ^Talk 20:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is spam for "External Links?"

Hi,

I appreciate your note on Wikipedia protocols. I'm new to editing and very willing to learn the rules and etiquette..

Can you tell me exactly what criteria qualifies for a legitimate submission to "External Links", for a particular article. You have deleted links of mine, believing them to be spam, but they all deal directly with the subject matter in the article.

I guess I don't think the fact that it should matter if my website is a provider/distributor of a given video or interview. Is this really a sufficient criterion for disqualification?

I have no profit motives or capabilities...

If a link is clearly relevant to the subject (ie. interviews or videos with the individual), and it is content-based, then I don't think it should matter who is doing the posting or linking.

I think the following WP: COI exception applies here:

"Citing oneself

You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be careful about excessive citation of your own work, to avoid the appearance of self-promotion. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether your citation is appropriate, and defer to the community's opinion."

If you like, we can go over the deleted links, and I can justify how each supports the given subject article.

Thanks,

Pdiperna 16:29, 16 April 2007

[edit] John Piper

Hi. Did you delete a John Piper article posting from the Post-tribulation rapture page? If so can I ask why? Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.57.120.130 (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Senang Hati Foundation

hey there, that was fast and, I think, unwarranted. I started writing an article about a real non-profit organisation I've encountered and come back the next morning and poof, it's gone; no chance to add 'hangon'. I would appreciate it if you would restore the stub I created; I will expand on it's notability. Their center provides a home for more than twenty people who are disabled; the centre has provided wheelchairs to something like a hundred individuals. See their site: http://www.SenangHati.org/ --~~Senang Hati~~ Jack Merridew 06:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 12:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you've been working with the admin who deleted it. Regards... RJASE1 ^Talk 14:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded the article a bit; would you consider removing the CSD tag at this point? I have also changed my username from User:Senang Hati → User:Jack Merridew. Terima Kasih. --Jack Merridew 06:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for changing your username...it looks like the article still needs sources to establish its notability - this is the main thing that puts it in the deletion category. RJASE1 ^Talk 13:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the speedy-tag on the above has been removed (twice) by others; and an additional reference added, too! I'd like input on what I should do, if anything, about the wp:cio tag on it; it invites deletion! Terima kasih. --Jack Merridew 10:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:The Revival Fellowship#Request for comment

Hi there. I have initiated the dispute resolution process through filing a request for comment in relation to the dispute about The Revival Fellowship. Please contribute to the process, if you want to, by making a statement at one of the points at this link. Thanks, Natgoo 17:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:RJASE1/Archive/Apr 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] AIV

[edit] Porno (novel)

[edit] drill instructor

[edit] WP:AIV

[edit] Re: From Genesis to Revelation

[edit] Chai (symbol)

[edit] Untitled section

[edit] National Underwear Day

[edit] Penguin Links

[edit] Montazh

[edit] Chai (symbol)

[edit] why is this being treated as SPAM?

[edit] Need further clarification because I do not believe I am being treated fairly here, nor do I believe that my link(s) were visited prior to being deleted, criticized and called "spam" ...

[edit] I'm sorry.

[edit] National Underwear Day

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

[edit] Username "Gay Media Matters"

[edit] WP:POINT accusation

[edit] Busting cancer

[edit] Peace offering

[edit] English

[edit] re: Doubble Troubble

[edit] Doubble Troubble Entry

[edit] Edits to my page

[edit] warning

[edit] Expressing my discontent with the way I have been treated here. I am NOT a spammer for crying out loud. I have been acting on good faith and principle and believe that Wiki is mistreating me.

[edit] =====================================

[edit] RFCN on TortureIsWrong

[edit] Your message

[edit] User Norcomm

[edit] Xfer of Discussion TIW to AN from User talk:The Behnam

[edit] Note from User talk:65.77.71.164

[edit] RE: Userpage

[edit] Creed perfume

[edit] Fatty etc

[edit] Deep Throat

[edit] WP:RFCN

[edit] New here and need your help.

[edit] Let's Review - Cont

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gaillimh

[edit] Sino-American War

[edit] Smile!

[edit] World Cider Day

[edit] wiki-addiction

[edit] 3K Battery

[edit] The Healing Project Deletion

[edit] Electricpolitics.com

[edit] Chai

[edit] getonebyone

[edit] Nice spam catch

[edit] Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta entry

[edit] bluebox

[edit] About the addition you removed

[edit] Scott Swedorski

[edit] Please help restore the external links section back to Chinese Astrology page

[edit] Spam question

[edit] Re: Rory Cellan-Jones

[edit] I have restore the External Link section on Chinese Astrology from before April 5.

[edit] You're famous now

[edit] Question

[edit] Desiring God

[edit] Sean Kennedy Article Deletion Discussion

[edit] Conflict of interest?

[edit] Helen Grace tags

[edit] George Church photo

[edit] SAIL LABS Technology

[edit] User:JohnHurt

[edit] What is spam for "External Links?"

[edit] John Piper

[edit] Senang Hati Foundation

[edit] Talk:The Revival Fellowship#Request for comment

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search