User talk:J. M./Archive 2

Vidlii
Vidlii exists please go to vidlii.com to confirm it's existence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro500xd (talk • contribs) 17:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The existence of the service is not the inclusion criterion for that page. As the big "Attention editors!" warning (which you ignored twice) says when you edit the page, and as I already explained to you three times (twice in my edit summary and once on your talk page), the list only includes links to existing articles on Wikipedia.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

What does "inappropriate" mean?
If http://www.risingbd.com can be on the list, what's wrong putting https://newshour.online to the List of newspapers in Bangladesh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmilon (talk • contribs) 08:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, please stop ignoring everything. When you edit the page, there is a big "Attention editors!" warning which clearly explains why you cannot add the link. You ignored it. Then when I reverted the edit, I explained what was wrong with your edit (that is, ignoring the warning). You ignored it. Then I sent you a message pointing you to the external links guideline. You ignored it. Now, please stop spamming with external links on Wikipedia, and please stop ignoring everything. Wikipedia is not an advertising board where you can freely post links to websites. Promoting newshour.online is obviously your primary goal on Wikipedia, which means you are not here to contribute positively. You may have a conflict of interest. So please stop spamming. Thanks.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Adobe Flash is, in fact, deprecated
Please don't allow a user with a personal stake in propagating falsehoods continue to mislead. I have posted the official announcement from Adobe. Adobe Flash is, in fact, deprecated. I have also posted the reasons in the talk page. Stretching the truth trying to say that because Adobe AIR is not deprecated, Adobe Flash is also not deprecated is not helpful, nor informative. Thank you. DavidBailey (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You failed to read both the announcement and the talk page post (which you replied to) properly. Both the announcement and the follow-up post by Adobe clearly explain that it is the Flash Player, the browser plugin, that is deprecated. Flash Player does not equal Flash. Flash is the whole technology (used by AIR, too). This is not stretching the truth. Please stop your edit warring. Even if Adobe Flash was deprecated (and again, they very clearly, explicitly explain that it is the Flash Player that is deprecated), it still does not belong in the first sentence of the article. Just like all your previous edits, it really feels violent, a fact that you desperately try to show to the world. An encyclopedic, unbiased article cannot "sound" like that. The deprecated Flash Player is mentioned later in the article and that is definitely enough.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

VPDF
Hello, I'm Smjg. I noticed that you recently removed all content from VPDF. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Smjg (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Software lists
Hello, the software did not have wikipedia links, hence their removal/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.123.148 (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The software did have Wikipedia links. And you knew it, as you removed them . That's why the removal was inappropriate. &mdash;J. M. (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at [Disruptive Power of Repair Management Method DPRMM]
It is notable since it is an emerging technology. The topic is written in scientific journal style and only the introduction is made easy to read, since one editor requested an easier to read introduction. As for Google, since the subject is new it will take time for Google. Google is not the global ruler of reality, nor does everything in google lead to anything true. Just like Facebook was misuses, the use of Google as a reference source is also being misused. I respectfully request that you keep the subject online as it is slowly being adopted by many reliability engineers globally. Also, I am not COI, but thanks for the tag. Gina Kano (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You do not understand what notability on Wikipedia means. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original articles on new emerging technologies that have not been described anywhere. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal either.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That is fully understood and acceptable, however, I am not describing something new, this particular subject area is in use in industry and is applied on a daily basis. If you prefer, I will edit the article to be less 'scientific" and more in line with "explanatory" style for the every day reader. Would this be acceptable? Gina Kano (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read the article on draftification and deletion, I understand that there are some editors that like to immediately delete articles based on various personal reasons. Since Wikipedia is a site aimed at sharing information, I request you cancel the deletion and let me continue to edit the article and bring it in line with some of your specific demands. You can review the immediate changes I have made already. Gina Kano (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The demands are not mine and my reasons are not personal. I already gave you everything you need to know (WP:N and WP:NOT), I don't have anything to add.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I realize my mistake, the title is incorrect, it should be PMO, Planned Maintenance Optimization, where the OTRME and DPRMM are two models used in this subject, amongst others. Please allow this article to remain, and I will begin to prepare a new one (disambiguation) which will include the DPRMM and OTMRE within it, under the title PMO - Planned Maintenance Optimization. Please cancel the deletion.Gina Kano (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Or ould it be OK if I leave the current title, but change the introduction to PMO? What do you think is best?Gina Kano (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you should first of all create a completely new draft with the new name. But it should not be the same article with a new name, as the current one is really terribly written. It is not an encyclopedic article at all (see the talk page for some hints). Then please submit the draft for review. You really do not seem to have an idea what a good article should look like yet, and more experienced editors can help you with that. Then if the draft is accepted, the DPRMM article can be safely deleted (I don't think a redirect would be needed as nobody would search for DPRMM on Wikipedia).&mdash;J. M. (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi J. M., thank you again for all your help and advice. first of all I apologize for being emotional and defensive, that is not my nature usually. I gess a first time experience online with immediate deletions rather then nurturing explanations can do that to anyone. I took all your advice into account and I have re-written the entire article in a draft page: Draft:Disruptive Power of Repair Management Method DPRMM I would appreciate your editorial of it, and notice that it has been totally changed, formatting, style and content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gina Kano (talk • contribs) 08:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Appeal my edits for List of video editing software
I don't believe my edits for adding Clipchamp to List of video editing software should've been removed. ~Annaphase — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annaphase (talk • contribs) 00:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Both of your edits were broken (destroyed the page formatting, deleted original text). Furthermore, the list only includes links to existing articles. No red links. And your second edit was pure spam. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I am still learning edits to Wikipedia, was not my intention to be spammy and I did preview the page before it was published, did not look like it had destroyed the format. I understand now I need to link within wikipedia, but we don't currently have a wikipedia page yet, all of the similar products within our category does. Not sure how I can resolve the chicken or egg problem here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annaphase (talk • contribs) 00:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Wta
Apologies. They are from the 11 June ranking from the website. I said 17 June because that's the date here for me. Apologies. Timeoin (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Timeoin (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Promotion?
Hi, you reverted an edit this morning for "promotion". I've no idea what you where refering to (neither the article, nor the edit). All I can remember doing this morning is replacing "are" with "is" before a collective noun -._.- Also, even as far as wiki editors go, the replies on your talk page seem particularly unfriendly. You might not be the only one who wants to make himself useful. Openflyingsourcer (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all: all your edits on Wikipedia are saved in the database and can be later checked by others, so if you think you can fool anyone by saying that all you did was replacing "are" with "is", you are mistaken. Anyone can check that you are not telling the truth (the main purpose of the edit was inserting the spam link, and that was what my message on your talk page was about: your main purpose on Wikipedia seems to be promoting Sourcefabric). As for the "unfriendly" messages: not all of them are unfriendly. But because my main job on Wikipedia is checking vandalism and spam, naturally, some of the spammers' replies on my talk page, when I revert their spam, are unfriendly (and many of them are intentionally trying to lie on my talk page, pretending that they don't know what's happening). But I am not here to make friends. My main goal on Wikipedia is to help the project and keep it healthy.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

MPEG-1 Audio Layer II
Why not take time to find a damn reference yourself? Rather than reinsert a five year old citation request? Have a good weekend.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have time for fixing everything. It's not my job to find and add references for everything on Wikipedia. My main concern was the unacceptable reference. It's not a citation. It's very obvious, 100% pure spam (a verbatim copy of the text in the article, plus a download page for the product, which is the only reason these "citations" are typically added), and Mogzol did the right thing to remove it, as any sane Wikipedian would do. The reference is worthless and does not meet WP:RS requirements. It had to be removed. You may have added it in good faith, but please do not re-add it. Thanks.—J. M. (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to, regardless of whether you replied or not. Far too many people don't see it as "their job" to find these references. Also "any sane Wikipedian" doesn't create a sock puppet account to solely remove a reference with no explanation.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You said My links are spammy and not relevant
Hello, Recently I got a message from your side that the reference link which I posted in the articles like Wireless Power transfer and Arduino are not relevant and spammy. But actually, they are well written and informative. I have only one question then how these big websites including few others links are available on these pages those not relevant and also some of them are dead. Moreover, few of them even not supplying a good amount of information related to that particular topic.

For example- The Wireless Power transfer page of Wikipedia has so many reference links and one of them is from Techcrunch:

https://techcrunch.com/2013/09/09/cota-by-ossia-wireless-power/

which is given for this text :

''In 2013, inventor Hatem Zeine demonstrated how wireless power transmission using phased array antennas can deliver electrical power up to 30 feet. It uses the same radio frequencies as WiFi.[78][79]''

If you see this link it is totally un-relevant and also dead.

In the same way, one link is from Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/jan/04/wireless-power-technology-witricity Which is for text

Advantages compared to other wireless methods are:[86]

If you go through the article you again see it is not relevant too.

These are only two if you want I can give you hundreds of such links those are on the Wikipedia pages but not adding any kind of value.

So, may I know who had approved all these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raj1350 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello. I did not say your links were spammy and not relevant. I did not even remove any one of them. Your links were removed by a Wikipedia administrator, with three main reasons mentioned in the edit summaries:
 * "Not a reliable source". All sources on Wikipedia must meet the Reliable sources guideline. If they do not meet this requirement, they have to be removed (even if they are well written and informative).
 * "More of a HOWTO". Wikipedia is not a howto.
 * "Promotional link disguised as a ref". Adding references just to promote the linked website (or products or services offered on the website) is one of the most common types of spam on Wikipedia.
 * Now, all I did was posting some standard user talk messages on your talk page. Let me explain all of them:
 * "Do not mark major edits as minor". External links, references are not minor edits (and marking external link additions as minor edits is one of the most common strategies used by spammers on Wikipedia).
 * "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion". Adding external links or references with the aim of promoting the linked content is not allowed.
 * "Conflict of interest". You obviously came to Wikipedia to promote the How2shout website. Which means you are here for the wrong reason. You are probably one of the H2S Media editors, which means you have a conflict of interest. This means you should avoid linking to your website on Wikipedia.
 * As for your "other links exist" argument—nobody can check all links on Wikipedia and guarantee that all of them are OK. That is not humanly possible. Some links pass unnoticed. Nobody "approves" them. If you notice a link that violates some of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you can remove it. Dead links can be marked as dead, or replaced with links to web archives. "Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument when you discuss link additions, article notability etc. When you do something wrong, the fact that someone else does it, too does not mean it is acceptable.
 * So, to sum up: you are welcome to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. However, if you came here to promote H2S Media, you are not in the right place.—J. M. (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

J.M. We are so far apart on how we perceive the course of events neither will likely persuade the other
I do not agree with the way you have been operating and I see you as operating as a bully and an insider who is likely to drive other editors away from Wikipedia by abusively misinterpreting Wikipedia's principles and the actions of others. However I will not be dissuaded by your behavior, but I will continue to oppose your Wikipedia behavior. WikiA2K (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh well... Does this even deserve a reply? Probably not, but anyway: you cannot keep deleting my comments as false accusations when they are indisputably true (as anyone can see from the diffs I posted), and think that this solves anything. Ignoring a problem does not make it go away. Accusing me of bullying, lying or any other nonsense does not make the problem go away. I can tolerate your continuous personal attacks (for a while), even though they are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, and most importantly, completely groundless. What is not acceptable, however, is your attitude, because when you refuse to admit clear, indisputable errors that anyone can easily verify, it means you will most likely keep repeating them and keep disrupting Wikipedia.
 * Let's face it, your behaviour has been a complete train wreck. You made clear mistakes (the diffs are there for everyone to see), yet you never admitted you did anything wrong. You always dismiss all explanations as "false accusations" or "BS" while inventing your own false accusations (see my comment on your talk page). You keep being rude, unfair, aggressive and completely wrong in everything. Now, as I already told you, the only way to fix your behaviour is admitting you have a problem. That's the crucial first step. You cannot fix a problem without realizing and admitting it first. And let's face it, you have an enormous problem with your behaviour, to put it very diplomatically.
 * Generally, there are two types of people on Wikipedia. Those who are able to admit their mistakes, and those who keep using your approach, which eventually gets them blocked from editing. Fairness, conscience, humility are some of the virtues that people need to find if they don't want to stray from the good path. I genuinely wish you good luck with that. Admitting a mistake is not a weakness. It is a strength.—J. M. (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Repeating False Accusations Does Not Make Them True
J.M. since you were not with me there is no way for you to know how I did my editing. You falsely accused me of a 'blind "search and replace"'. I did not do that either of the times you accused me of it, either recently or back in 2016. Secondly you are not in a position to tell anyone else that your comments did not come off as harsh. That is my perception and I hold to it. The way you commented was filled with your having jumped to conclusions (such as the one I just enumerated). I think you have operated as a bully and even the posts above this one support my perception. It looks to me that you may be one of the people who can not admit their erro. Anyway if you persist in rolling back my edits or to commenting on my edits in the manner you have been I will appeal it because I find your operating procedures abusive. I would prefer that we do not interact anymore. WikiA2K (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all: Please read the last paragraph of my previous post again. I know you are not able to accept or admit it right now, at least not publicly. Admitting the truth hurts. But hopefully one day you will be able to leave the state of denial, at least silently, in your heart.
 * Secondly, if you make the same mistake again and damage one of the articles I have on my watchlist again, by replacing strings blindly, without checking them (how do I know you made these string replacements blindly? Because if you did not make them blindly, it would mean you destroyed them knowingly, which would mean vandalism, and so I'm assuming good faith here), I will either revert or fix your edit once again and send you a level-3 warning. As I already explained to you, this is the standard procedure on Wikipedia, and warning users who repeatedly do the same mistake is very important. You can of course appeal it anywhere you wish. But the facts are on my side and I have no problem explaining this anywhere.—J. M. (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)