User talk:Jonobennett

Welcome!

Hello, Jonobennett, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some articles that you might find useful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Night Gyr 19:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Jojo, an external link contributed onto Comedy Dave's page was removed by yourself and I am unsure as to why this doesn't comply with Wikipedia's external links, the explanation given for such removal. The link provided offered further information reinforcing Comedy Dave's wikipedia profile and confirms his latest work within the media. Thank you for your time and I would appreciate advice in resolving this issue. MollieSummers (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the note I left on your talk page explains, the links you added do not comply with Wikipedia's policy on external links. You're also adding lots of external links to your company's site to other pages -- this is considered spamming, and isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a way of promoting your business, which is what your links appear to be designed to do, since they don't offer anything of interest to the general public. Jonobennett (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must also take umbrage at the removal of external links. The few links I added were all to add value to users--of course I know the pages are no-followed, and hence the reason for adding them is not to enhance the value of any pages off Wikipedia--only to provide contextually relevant information to users beyond what is contained on the page. Please do not selectively delete external links, or it appears that you are maliciously targeting...unless you are going to remove all of the links, you are subjecting yourself to liability. I appreciate your understanding in this matter, and expect the prompt addition of aforementioned deleted links.

Matt

Dear Matt,

If you want to "provide contextually relevant information to users", please add the information to the Wikipedia articles in question, otherwise you're merely trying to promote your own web sites. The guidelines for external links are quite clear about adding multiple links to sites with which you are affiliated. It's considered spamming and it's not allowed. I may not have removed all external links, but that's not a good reason for yours to stay.

If you genuinely think the links will add value to the articles, discuss them on the relevant talk pages with other editors. If they think they're worth adding, they will. Do not add them yourself, since you have a conflict of interest. If you think I've acted against Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines you're welcome to take this matter to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.

Also, "you are subjecting yourself to liability" sounds like a personal threat, which is also against WP guidelines.

Jonobennett (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the "talk" pages that you reference? Are there links for each page? As I mentioned, the purpose of providing the selected link is not to derive any kind of SEO benefit for our site--we know that would not occur. However, if there is a legitmate and aligned content that will benefit the page and the WP community, why is that considered bad? It feels like you are singling us out, although I see there are others who feel that this arbitrary decision is unfair.

Matt—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.241.51 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 25 June 2008

Dear Matt

If you don't understand what a Talk page is, you should probably read the introduction to Wikipedia. It will also show you where you can find WP's policies and guidelines. One of the guidelines is that you don't delete content from other people's talk pages, as you did in your last edit.

I will reiterate (including links so you can find the articles easily): Wikipedia is not a list of links, a list of indiscriminate info or a way of advertising your site. The guidelines say "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked.", because that means you have a conflict of interest.

And how can I be singling you out when others have complained about the same thing? That's a contradiction. As I said, if you think you're hard done to, consult the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.

Jonobennett (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally websites

Hello. Over the last couple of weeks you have stripped out all the references to my local websites from wikipedia, claiming that they are spam. I'm referring to instances on the Guildford, Norwich, Norfolk Broads and Battersea pages.

I understand that unrelated or purely commercial links are not allowed, but my sites add to the information on wikipedia as they include restaurant reviews, photographs, information about local attractions, sports and activities etc. And they are no different from a number of other sites listed on those pages (other than being more informative in many cases). The sites are run from my front room and i pick those locations because i have good knowledge about them.

I dont want to spend the rest of my life adding them back, and then you removing them, so i'd like to understand what your actual objection is?

thanks Jonathan

mailto:mail@totallyonline.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.161.174 (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Same As Jonathan

You sent me a notice saying I was spamming Wikipedia. I reviewed the spam rules and I do not understand why you think this is so.

My website covers over 2400 different musicians. The links I added were to specific free information about each artist.

I see that Wikipedia permits links from IMDB, All Music and other commercial websites on as many pages as they want.

Frankly, because Wikipedia uses, without permission, information from my site on many of these pages, the least Wiki can do is permit links to the source of the information.

MasterRecs (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


You wrote to me: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." -- the links you've post are in direct contravention of this. The links you see to IMDB, etc. weren't posted there by anyone affiliated with those organisations, but by other Wikipedians. Jonobennett (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MasterRecs"

Your guideline says AVOID linking. This is not a hard and fast rule. My site covers over 2,400 artists and I have made links to less than 100 of them.

I would appreciate some positive suggestions on what I can do while Wiki users continue to believe, quite incorrectly, that information posted on the internet is free or is not protected by copyrights.

MasterRecs (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Hamilton

I noticed you admonished an IP editor for vandalising Lewis Hamilton. His/her edits were not particularly helpful and seemed to be somewhat self-promotional, but they were not vandalism. Please be more careful before accusing others of vandalism and assume good faith. Thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palma Nova

You recently moved my link to www.magalluf-palmanova.com, fine. But the one for www.palma-nova.co.uk is still there, and it is a commercial site like mine. Can you either please remove that or put mine back. Thank you

Moggsmallorca (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Maquis

Well I thought that was bullet proof! I even checked the bush page and under the Australian section it mentions bushwackers, which is what a maquisard effectively is.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Maquis under references in classical literature.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


DiDio

I had earlier started a section on the talk page of this BLP inquiring why people thought that the Amityville episode was at all significant in DiDio's career. Do you think you could perhaps participate in that discussion? I have also asked Gimmetrow and Proxy Editor to do so. Thanks. Risker (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


re Compost rv

or what's in [a name]?

John Innes Compost is a recipe - for a proprietary product being sold by certain suppliers, which contains no "compost" but rather inorganic (chemical) fertilizers, and exactly what those chemicals are remains obscure (ie: NO recipe made public, just links to proprietary products) .... being not sold by the John Innes Center in particular really is irrelevent, it's simply not Compost and a link to a stub entirely about purported uses for a named proprietary product, which doesn't provide the "formula" (beyond making it clear there's no "compost" involved), doesn't belong on an article about a natural organic substance that's the result of the biological decomposition process (Composting) .... :shrug: .... but, have to present both sides I guess. Red58bill (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on Talk:Compost Jonobennett (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diddl

I added a bit more as to why I agreed with the other editors in support of keeping this article. Bearian (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Jonobennett! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 13 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Steve Ryde - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social Networks

Youre trigger finger quicker than mine. You beat me by 5 seconds on Social Networks revert now;-) Bellagio99 (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A common problem

Dear Wikipedist editor, I want to submit to your attention an our common problem: disruptive contributions and edit warring operated by user Derek farn (talk). This latter shows systematically a provoking behaviour and lacking of respect for other people’s work, typical of vandalism. I’ve sent this communication to many people having the same problem in order to organize a collective protest/action request directed to e.g. the Arbitration Committee or Requests for comment/User conduct (this latter procedure requires the participation of at least two users) or to the Wikipedia Community. If you agree with this initiative please contact me at this dedicated email address: clipeaster-1971 AT yahoo DOT com. In order to avoid creating of a forum section dedicated to Derek farn I suggest you to delete this communication once you’ve read it and, then, be in contact via email. Any suggestion are welcomed. I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Structuralgeol (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I judge edits made to Wikipedia on the quality of their content, not who made them. I don't appreciate being canvassed in this way, and encouraging discussion outside of WP itself is completely contrary to the principles of the project. I feel I have no choice but to report you for this action. Jonobennett (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jonobennett, I didn’t mean to bother (or canvass) you. Already another user pointed out to me that promoting off-wiki contact is not in agreement with Wikipedia policies. I’m not expert about Wikipedia rules, nevertheless I know that Request for comment on user conduit needs to be operated by at least two users, consequently I guess that sending such an invitation is of course allowed (I don’t want to canvass you). I suggested use of email for two reasons: (i) I don’t understand how more people can communicate efficiently via user talk page, in order to coordinate a request for some restriction, (ii) in order to avoid producing a forum dedicated to Derek farn. Nevertheless now I understand that off-wiki communication is not the correct way to perform such an action request. I would be grateful if you could provide me some useful suggestion about. I’m in good faith and I invite you to give a look to Derek farn’s talk page. Five years of dispute and no constructive contributions but only reverting of other people work. With my best regards, Structuralgeol (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Rory Wilmer

Hello Jonobennett, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Rory Wilmer, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 19:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]