User talk:Jugdev

Hello, Jugdev, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions. To get the most out of Wikipedia, you may benefit from following some of the links below.

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or

or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field.

Happy editing! --Snowysusan (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Rocket Girl edits

Hi, please consult the talk page of the Rocket Girl article regarding my edits on the page and the reason behind them. Please familiarise yourself with the relevant policies that govern the issues addressed (and seek assistance if needed), however please don't just revert the edits without discussing and reaching a consensus on the talk page.Rayman60 (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Rocket Girl, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rocket Girl, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Drugstore, Low and P.S. I Love You (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cheree Records (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Indie

Rocket Girl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Drugstore

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ché (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Dart, Exit, Backwater, Seam, Magic Hour, The Golden Mile, Delta, Dweeb and Bis

Cheree Records (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Loop and State Of Grace

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ché Trading, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dweeb (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Eat Lights Become Lights

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Eat Lights Become Lights requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Cindy(talk) 11:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Thanks for contacting me. File:Eat Lights final band pic.jpg was deleted per WP:CSD#F3. Licenses for use "only on Wikipedia" are unacceptable. The license must be free and allow commercial use and derivatives. INeverCry 02:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eat Lights Become Lights, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rocket Girl may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

as far afield as Japan ([[Afterhours]]), USA ([[Magnet]]), Spain ([[Rockdelux]]), France, Germany ([[Rolling Stone]]} and Greece in addition to the key music publications ([[Q]], [[Uncut]], [[Mojo]], [[The Wire]], [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eat Lights Become Lights, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cluster and Can (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rocket Girl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page My Bloody Valentine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Füxa may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

* '''''Venoy''''' 1997 (Darla (Bliss Out v.5" CD5/12"EP)
* '''''Photon''''' ‎2013 (7" [[Rocket Girl]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Füxa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darla (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Füxa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:ELBL Electromagnetika ModularLiving rocketgirl.ogg

Thank you for uploading File:ELBL Electromagnetika ModularLiving rocketgirl.ogg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rocket Girl, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chinese, Drone and Dearborn. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Hello, could you talk with me at Talk:Internet_of_Things#Unexplained_deletion? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style

Hi Jugdev. Please advise if you require assistance with the style of writing for articles in the Wikipedia. As a starting point, please familiarise yourself with this and this section. Shout if you need help. Enjoy the project. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rui, thank you for your feedback on big data. In response, the introductory paragraph abides by wiki standards: sentence one is a fact; sentence two is a fact; sentence three is as it was before my edits. The first two sentences allow a layer of context to the third sentence, which is why I feel that the paragraph should remain as it is. I look forward to working with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jugdev (talk • contribs) 04:57, 29 January 2015‎

I agree with User:Rui Gabriel Correia--the tone is not appropriate for Wikipedia, especially for the opening paragraph, which should be a terse summary, per MOS:LEAD--many people see only the lead paragraph, e.g. in search results, so it should be straightforward and stand alone. (If a person searches for "big data" and sees "Big Data is an all-encompassing term for any collection of data sets so large or complex that it becomes difficult to process using traditional data processing applications", they may have learned everything they need to know. If they see "Data has always been Big. The one aspect that differs now (if compared with the past) would be the sheer scale and accessibility of Data, which is the direct result of the super efficient speeds in which data can now be computed", they don't...) -- Narsil (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Narsil. Somehow I failed to convey that to the editor, who still feels that what he done is good and in line with the style for an ecncyclopaedia. I trust that he will have enough sense to not change it again. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points[...]" (MOS:LEAD) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Jugdev (talk • contribs) 06:13, 31 January 2015

I don't think any of us wants to get into an edit war here! ;-) I've asked for administrators to chime in: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#User_talk:Jugdev.23Manual_of_Style -- Narsil (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told that there hasn't been enough discussion to merit admin intervention yet. So... I've restored Gabriel's last version, and added my comments to the Big Data talk page (in Talk:Big data#Tone of article). Jugdev, if you want to discuss this further, please do so there I stead of here--and please don't just restore your version without discussing it!

Gabriel, if you're tired of the matter, that's cool--I can request a third opinion via WP:3O. But I'd be very glad of your further help here... ;-) Thanks! -- Narsil (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Big data. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Kuru (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Narsil, for your input. The user has since reverted your most recent change, despite:

1a. being asked to leave as it and discuss,
1b. just like before with the removal of tags on tone, despite requests to not remove until the matter had been settled.
2. Recieving a warning that his

I've since had one more go at explaining to the user the issues with: 1. Intro 2. Editorialising, peacock and weasel words. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving it to Administrators

Hi User:Narsil, now I am stepping out. User has given us all the necessary evidence that he either does not know how or is not willing to play ball. I leave it to User:Kuru and/ or any other editor/s to decide on how to proceed. Thanks to you both, see you elsewhere on this wide WP universe. Um abraço, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you your contribution. Please see my comments on the talk page regarding the revert.-JG (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a Request for Comment on the matter. It looks like JG is blocked for now, but I figure this will let other people chime in (and, if that's the consensus, restore the old version). Narsil (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution. I look forward to working with you. -JG (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Big data

added a link pointing to Practitioner

Internet of Things

added a link pointing to Practitioner

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Kuru (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate that you have at least joined the discussion; repeated reverts to your preferred material when it is clear that it is disputed by multiple editors is unacceptable. In the future, please gain a consensus for your edits before making future changes to that article. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jugdev (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe that the edits that I have made on Wikimedia Foundation's behalf are valid, referenced and relevant. My edits have been reverted by two editors who have not shown an in depth understanding of the subject matter. My edits have been deleted as many times as I have reverted despite the fact that I have tried to justify the edits. I have persisted in reverting because I have not received a satisfactory justification for the deletions - I assumed that this is something that should be expected on any project conducted on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I do not feel that a block is justified due to the reasons made above. -JG (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural close of this request because your 24-hour block has expired. EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Continued reverts

Jugdev, I've read through the discussion on the Big data talk page, and there is clear consensus against your version of the lede. You still seem to be reverting back to your preferred version - please note that this is simple edit warring, and that any future reverts are very likely to lead to blocks of increasing duration. You will need to limit yourself to the discussion and gain a clear consensus for your version. Kuru (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution Kuru. Wikipedia is a place that shares knowledge, which I believe the editors in question are lacking. Happy to leave the primitive first sentence despite the fact that my version was indeed a quotation from a publication that focuses on the subject of the article. I will not revert again, but would ask you to rephrase the following guidelines due to their deceiving connotations:

"Wikipedia articles, [...] should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable"

I believe that my version of this article is in line with the standards noted above. The sources are reliable and the content is clear and easily digested.

"Normally, the opening paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail that follows."

-JG (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jugdev, you are repeating the same edit warring behavior against multiple editors at Internet, another high visibility article. Stop reverting to your preferred version and start a discussion on the article's talk page to gain consensus for your edits; they are clearly contested. Please consider this a final warning. Kuru (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I contest your change. You have not given enough justification for your revert - I will continue to escalate. -JG (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made no change to the article; you seem to be confused. Kuru (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." -JG (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you say you're going to "escalate", what do you mean? If you mean you're going to follow the processes listed in WP:DISPUTE--for example, trying to get other editors involved who might back your proposed changes--that's great! That's how WP works. Or alternatively, if you feel like we're behaving inappropriately or treating you unfairly, you can request administrator intervention (per the guidelines in Resolving user conduct disputes)--though since an admin (User:Kuru) is already involved, that may not change anything. (Of course, if you feel like his behavior is inappropriate, you can use these steps to call attention to that.) All of this is part of the normal way of doing the job here on Wikipedia.

But if, by "escalate", you mean "keep restoring your preferred version of the article even though every other editor who is currently involved disagrees with your changes"--I think it's highly likely you'll just find yourself blocked for disruptive editing.

If you honestly want to find out why other editors disagree with your edits, the thing to do would be to start a new section on Talk:Internet, describe your proposed changes, and ask why other editors disagree. But if you go there to just say "this is why I'm right, this is why my edits are better", and make your changes again regardless of what other editors think... it's not likely to work well. Narsil (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rocket Girl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mojo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits that add references are never "minor"

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Internet, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". (In particular, adding a reference--as you did with Internet--is never considered "minor". When in doubt, it's always okay to mark a change as "major".) Thanks! — Narsil (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Advertising inventory

Hello Jugdev,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Advertising inventory for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Rberchie (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Media inventory for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Media inventory is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media inventory until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ― Padenton |☎ 16:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thank you for your contribution. Both media inventory and advertising inventory were simultaneously created. I have linked the two pages as I now feel that both pages described the same process, but I prefer the term media inventory. Linking of the two (i.e. advertising inventory and media inventory) should not affect the conversation about whether or not the ultimate process (i.e. the transaction of media space) should be included on Wikipedia. I am happy to discuss this further at your convenience. I look forward to working on this page with you. -JG (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of media agencies

added links pointing to PHD, AKA, OMD, Kinetic, MNC, UM, Carat and MEC

Media buying

added a link pointing to WPP

Programmatic media

added a link pointing to Practitioner

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Internet of Things, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages British and Analytic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Conversion tracking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KPI. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interacting on Programmatic media

Hi, you have blanket-reverted my edits on programmatic media with no explanation. As Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary says, "It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit." Moreover, since you haven't explained your reversion, there's no way for other editors to respond intelligently to your edits. I see that you have been responsible for almost all of the edits to this article (thanks!), but on Wikipedia, no individual editor "owns" an article. Please try to edit more collaboratively. --Macrakis (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:REFERS. Articles should never start "X is a term for Y", but rather "X is Y". --Macrakis (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Macrakis The article begins with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: What is programmatic media and Why it is notable - as per the guidelines. Your original edit omitted a few important facts hence its revert. (--Jugdev)

Thanks for your reply. By the way, if you write --~~~~ at the end of your comments, they will be signed with your user name and a date stamp.

It's generally more productive to selectively improve on other editors' contributions, rather than remove them entirely (except of course in the case of vandalism). In any case, I've opened the discussion on the style and content of the article at Talk:Programmatic media and invite you to engage there. --Macrakis (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of request for intervention

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. direct link Thank you. Macrakis (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that the talk page of an article is meant to be a record of discussion related to an article. Editors should not remove other editors' comments from the talk page. (It's also bad form to remove one's own comments from an article talk page if somebody has replied to them, since it distorts the flow of the conversation.) —C.Fred (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments C.Fred The user appears to be vandalising the page despite being informed that the changes omit important information. The commentary on the talk page appears to completely disregard the commentary noted when the changes were reverted.

I don't see where the other party is acting in bad faith or has otherwise vandalized the article. It looks like there is just a content dispute, and that needs resolved through discussion. Also, edit summaries do not substitute for discussion. You need to discuss the changes at the article's talk page. Also, remember that discussion involves dialogue; you need to listen to the other party's comments (or other parties', since there appear to be other editors active in the article now) and respond. That's the only way to move toward a consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More directly, you need a better rationale for this edit than "reverted vandalism", especially since other editors have pointed out how your edits break Wikipedia guidelines. If you label another good-faith edit as vandalism in your revert, you are at risk of being blocked for bad-faith editing and disruption. —C.Fred (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jugdev, you are at three reverts within a 24 hour period. Do not revert on this article again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Diffs of his reverts: #1, #2, #3, #4. Can we get a short block for disruption and edit warring, please? It's obvious he's not going to stop, and there's no hope of ever getting in a single copy edit if he believes every change is vandalism. It seems a bit bureaucratic to go to WP:ANEW when this is already being discussed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above are continually engaging in removing key facts from programmatic media despite being informed that the facts are crucial to the subject area. The protocol (assess, revert, warn, watch ...) is being adhered to at present. (unsigned contribution by User:Jugdev ‎ 2015-10-01T15:50:00)

I'm not going to be drawn into an extended edit war with you. However, you have violated 3RR on this article, so you're clearly not adhering to policy. Consensus is clearly against you. You have refused to discuss your issues on the talk page and stubbornly label every edit as vandalism, when they are clearly not vandalism. If you would simply discuss your reasons for being opposed to every edit, maybe we could improve the page. If you see nothing at all wrong with your behavior, I don't think you're going to last very long before being indefinitely blocked for disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I didn't look at the dates carefully enough, as the earliest revert I mentioned was actually from two days ago, not yesterday. But you're still at 4RR on the article thanks to your latest revert. And I don't really think it's very funny to put a vandalism warning on my talk page. This is first time I've ever been templated in 8 years, so I guess you get that honor. Note that WP:NOTVAND has been pointed out to you repeatedly, and it is disruptive to call good-faith edits "vandalism". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's very funny that you, Jugdev, put a vandalism warning on my talk page. It's not the first time I've gotten one from an edit-warrior. It just makes it clearer that you're not engaging in constructive discussion and dispute resolution. But it's not too late! Many productive editors started out with similar misunderstandings of the way Wikipedia works. I hope you'll join us as a productive and cooperative editor. --Macrakis (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Your recent editing history at Programmatic media shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. JohnInDC (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An edit warning has been left on your talk page.

-JG (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Kuru (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jugdev (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The [programmatic media] page contains key industry and academic facts that are all interrelated. Multiple users have been engaging in reverting some of the key facts within the article. I believe that my initial commentary was not taken on board and the removal of key facts has continued. I have followed the Assess, Revert, Warn, and Watch and Report protocol. I have left edit warnings on all user talk pages concerned and noted that some have been deleted. I have not made any reverts since warning the users. My last revert was made as the user added the warning on my page. -JG (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You don't get to continue edit warring until someone places the edit warring template on your talk page. Having been blocked in the past for edit warring, you should already be well aware of the site policy - and you were well beyond the 3RR bright-line rule. Additionally, you blanked the article talk page of attempts to discuss the content, at least once with an edit summary[1] claiming that discussion to be vandalism - which it clearly was not. The article talk page is the most appropriate location to discuss article content when there is a content dispute. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

re:Email

Yes, per WP:OWNTALK, users are allowed to remove and/or archive comments, information notices and warnings from their own talkpage, at their won discretion. One exceptions to keep in mind for future reference, is declined unblock requests while the relevant block is still in place. Abecedare (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Programmatic media. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You are continuing to edit war on the same page right after coming off a block for edit warring. Stop. Jbh ^Talk 21:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Jbhunley. When multiple editors revert your edit, that is a sign that you are working against the consensus of editors at the article. You must work with them at the talk page and discuss to get support for any change, either to your desired version or to other version that everybody can agree on.

One other note on your editing. You have been marking every edit as minor. Edits should be marked as minor edits only when they are minor, superficial changes, such as a spelling change or a punctuation change. Adding a large block of text is not a minor edit. Further, some editors could view your use of the minor edit tag as an intentional attempt to conceal your edits. —C.Fred (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are at three reverts in the last 24 hours at Programmatic media, and WP:3RR is a bright-line rule. —C.Fred (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred, we're having a fruitful conversation. Do you agree that RTB should be included within the introductory paragraph of a general article about programmatic media? -JG (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation is not at all fruitful. I make edits, explain my reasons at Talk, gain (the beginnings of) consensus and Jugdev, citing uncertain flaws, reverts to his preferred version while complaining that - Talk page discussion notwithstanding - I gave no reason for my edits. JohnInDC (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not commenting on which version I prefer, other than that the article should reflect a consensus as reached through discussion on the talk page. Instead, I am remaining uninvolved in the content angles of the discussion and reserving my right to act in an administrative capacity if necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jugdev reported by User:Jbhunley (Result: ). Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 01:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015 - please sign your comments

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015 - please stop marking all edits as "minor" (yet again)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent DR/N Case (status:closed)

Hi Jugdev, when you file a case at DR/N you need to include the names of the editors that are involved in the dispute. DR/N Volunteers will rarely fix this, instead we will do an administrative close since there is no use in discussing the case as there is no one to discuss it with. You can refile the case, but you need to include the involved editors from all sides of the dispute. If you want any help, feel free to ping me on this page. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Drcrazy102:, Thank you for your note. I will refile the case with names of those involved.-JG (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015 - please sign your comments

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you.

I feel sort of stupid adding the same template message to your page over and over but I do not know how to get your attention on this matter. Please sign your comments, please sign your comments. It is not hard to do, and I am sick of adding the template myself. JohnInDC (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015 - please stop marking edits as minor (again)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.

Here too, the same request - the second time from me but at least the third time on this page, and I have lost count of how many times it has been pointed out to you on Talk pages or elsewhere. What do I need to do to wring a response from you?

At this stage, candidly, I am simply building a record of the difficulty in dealing with you on all matters, ranging from the simplest matters of Wikipedia protocol up through your clear inability to work collaboratively with other editors, as shown at Programmatic media. JohnInDC (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Programmatic media, you may be blocked from editing. Do not remove other people's comments from the discussion. I have reverted your change as vandalism. RichardOSmith (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have erroneously templated JohnInDC with the exact same message I used above for restoring his content when it was in fact I who did it. Your comment got removed as part of the revert to restore his. Reverting vandalism is not vandalism. RichardOSmith (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Programmatic media. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. RichardOSmith (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Programmatic media. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have not learned anything from your past warnings and blocks. When your block expires or you are unblocked I strongly suggest you voluntarily keep to a WP:1RR restriction on this article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were advised, when you filed a request for moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard, that in order to refile, you needed both to list the other editors and to notify them using a template for the purpose. Instead, you did a malformed refiling of the case, not listing the article itself, and identifying the other editors in the text of the filing, but you neither listed the other editors using the menu for the purpose, nor did you notify them using the template for the purpose. The instructions by coordinator User:TransporterMan were clear. If you didn't understand them, you should have asked. When your current block expires, if you do another incomplete filing, you may be considered to be editing disruptively and may be blocked again. Please read the dispute resolution policy and the instructions for WP:DRN before wasting our time yet again. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to waste the time of the volunteers at the dispute resolution noticeboard by not following the instructions that have already been explained to you, by not providing notice to the other editors. Your request has been closed due to lack of notice. If you really want to discuss content issues at DRN, please do a complete filing including listing the editors and notifying the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Programmatic media. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. In particular, that nonsense about 1981 Teletext and Oglivy & Mather. It has been thoroughly discussed at the article Talk page. I'm giving you a level 3 warning in light of your intractability on this on other points. JohnInDC (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

just to reiterate, previous changes have been copied from programmatic media history as posted below (Inclusive of Sources). Are you able to elaborate on your commentary just in case we have gotten our wires crossed? If not can you please revert the changes that you may have accidentally reverted? It would be better to have this conversation on the programmatic media talk page as it may not be a matter of unsourced material after all.

Algo section It has been suggested that the interactive media division of WPP Group's Ogilvy and Mather (now known as Neo@Ogilvy), has the deepest roots in terms of exploring mechanised media. Their 1981 venture, known as Teletext, entailed the broadcast of print material on television sets equipped with a special decoder that utilised binary code.^[1] Programmatic media has built on this digital framework with an algorithmic method of transacting cross-media.

IOT section The Internet of Things is simply a network of sensors that allow advertisers access to a variety of user data (e.g. temperature readings, status updates, location co-ordinates, and check ins) relating to user actions outside of the traditional media space. A unique digital fingerprint can be generated through everyday tasks (i.e. via temperature readings, status updates, location co-ordinates, and check in's) resulting in an increased opportunity to gather data, or big data, relating to how users consume within particular digital environments. The term was first coined by Kevin Ashton, in the United Kingdom, in 1999.^[2] -JG (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ Joseph, Turow (2011). The Daily You. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. p. 39. ISBN 978-0-300-16501-2.
^ Wood, Alex. "The internet of things is revolutionising our lives, but standards are a must". theguardian.com. The Guardian. Retrieved 31 March 2015.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Programmatic media. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I would not be surprised if your next block, if you continue, is an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. Jbh ^Talk 12:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting reference about the history of algorithmic advertising has been overlooked (inclusive of page number)^[1]. Do you agree that this is a relevant source. If so, the the rationale for the revert by User:JohnInDC is redundant? I will post this onto the talk page for the reference of other editors. In my opinion, we mustn't "dumb" the subject down for the benefit of the uninterested...

^ Joseph, Turow (2011). The Daily You. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. p. 39. ISBN 978-0-300-16501-2.

Continued edit warring

At this point, if you re-insert the material again without consensus, it's likely you'll be blocked. I suggest you use WP:DRN or open a WP:RFC if you want to get other opinions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks - how would one categorise this particular WP:RFC?-JG (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sci (math, science, and technology). Please make sure your RFC statement is concise, coherent, and neutral. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Programmatic media for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Programmatic media is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programmatic media until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jbh ^Talk 20:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The administrators are reviewing the page in full, with a fine toothed comb. I will leave it to their good judgement. -JG (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

In this edit you removed an Articles for Deletion template. The template explicitly says that you may not do so. I have restored the template. You should engage in the discussion indicated in that template. If you remove the template again, you will be blocked from editing. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 21:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The administrators are reviewing the page in full, with a fine toothed comb. I will leave it to their good judgement. -JG (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Finlay McWalter: he did it again. Jbh ^Talk 23:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jugdev, you realize you're about to get blocked again, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've ignored my warning and again removed the notice. There are no legitimate grounds for you to do so. Consequently I have blocked your account from editing. As your behaviour is part of a continued pattern of poor behaviour on this article, I have followed the normal pattern of escalating blocks. You are blocked for two weeks. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 07:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior at Programmatic media raises suspicions

Hello, Jugdev. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Programmatic media, you may have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

Last but not least: All contributors must not contribute content that violates conflict of interest laws (just as all contributors must respect copyright). The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive is valid throughout the European Union. In a German court decision in 2012 (that also relied on the directive) regarding Wikipedia: "The court held that when a company edits a Wikipedia article, the resulting text falsely creates the impression that the edit has no business-related purpose. By implication, the judges found that the average reader of Wikipedia articles expects to find objective and neutral information." That is a very very important condition, comparable to the FTC Guide" that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser”. This expectation by consumers of neutral information on Wikipedia, requires that companies not write "their" WP articles for PR/marketing purposes.

Editors who are compensated for their contributions should make the disclosure by placing the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template at the top of the talk page of affected articles and filling in the parameters. They should also supply this information as part of a list on their user page of all their paid contributions.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. Thank you. LjL (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice above. Just to confirm, there are no conflicts of interest on this page. Particular editors may have come to the wrong conclusion.

Regarding my Joseph Turow citation (of O&M), facts are indeed facts and it is not possible to discuss algorithmic media without pin pointing O&M's contributions to the space. Please feel free to engage should you require any elaboration on this matter.

-JG (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jugdev (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block is not justified as I simply undid revisions (2x) on the programmatic media page as I wanted the administrators to review the page in question as it was in order to gain their feedback. The other editors involved, as noted on the noticeboard, are engaging in the activity that I am being accused of - edit warring and unjustified edits. I am unable to comment on the Programmatic Media post that I noted on the Administrators Notice board. I would like to contribute to the discussion on the notice board and contribute my part of the argument. Numerous conversations are happening and it does not make sense for these conversations to happen without my involvement - I am being referred to in many of the conversations. -JG (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This appeal makes no sense. Twice removing AfD templates from Programmatic media was clear disruption. To be unblocked, you must show you understand the problem you caused and give us confidence that you won't repeat it. This is already your third block in the month of October. You are lucky this block was for only two weeks and not indefinite. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jugdev (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I appreciate that, without any context, my revert of the AfD template did not comply with wiki guidelines. I accept the block, when considered in isolation, and will absolutely not revert any AfD templates again. All of my edits are undertaken in good faith. The block is no longer necessary as I will not repeat again.-JG (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

To start with, an unblock request that says things like "without any context, my revert of the AfD template did not comply with wiki guidelines", and "I accept the block, when considered in isolation" (my emphasis) are suspect, as they look like an attempt to appear to accept the block, but without actually accepting any responsibility. Your repeatedly removing the AfD notice did not comply with guidelines - never mind "without any context", and saying that you accept the block "when considered in isolation" clearly implies "but in fact I don't accept it". However, despite that, I was still willing to consider unblocking, so I looked at your editing history. It is perfectly clear that what you have said that you accept (but with provisos indicating that you don't accept it) is only a small part of the disruptive editing that led to the block; consequently, even if you were to accept responsibility without weasel-worded provisos for the one issue that you mention, there would be no indication that you are unlikely to continue with your disruptive editing in other respects. Considering everything, the only aspect of this block which I think might be subject to review is that it is for so short a time: I agree 100% with what EdJohnston said in declining your previous unblock request. Another unblock request like this is likely to lead to loss of your talk page access, to prevent you from wasting the time of yet more administrators in reviewing requests which don't address the relevant issues. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jugdev (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My revert of the AfD template did not comply with wiki guidelines. I accept the block and will absolutely not revert any AfD templates again. All of my edits are undertaken in good faith. The block is no longer necessary as I will not repeat again.-JG (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Regardless of the outcome of the SPI, the length of this block is completely justified (4th block for similar behavior in less than a year). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

User talk:Ohnoitsjamie, Thanks for reviewing.-JG (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewing admin should be aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jugdev. The matter is still open. JohnInDC (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JohnInDC, I cannot comment on the inv page due to the block on my account... Whilst I have your attention, we are still owed an explanation on why you placed edit warnings on my account for an untrue reason? This is against wiki guidelines. Feel free to respond here. The lack of evidence in your arguments makes the mind boggle. -JG (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You "accept the block" whilst requesting that it be overturned. Contradictory, surely? RichardOSmith (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RichardOSmith, wiki guidelines are wiki guidelines. This has been my position since we've commenced conversations (on programmatic talk & my talk pages).-JG (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. However, you seem unwilling or unable to understand and apply them. I will not blue link any more information for you, by now you have been given a chance to read it all. The way things are going at the ANI thread you opened it looks like you will be topic banned from all articles/discussions relating to advertising. I also strongly suspect that if you are found to have been SOCKing at the AfD you will be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have been given more chances by admins here, frankly, than I think you warrant and the other editors at Programmatic Media have shown the patience of Job by not requesting an indefinite block sooner. If you somehow maintain your editing privileges here I strongly suggest you find some non-controversial area of Wikipedia and spend 6 months learning how to edit and collaborate with others. Jbh ^Talk 13:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jbhunley, You are questioning my comprehension of the rules yet completely disregard them yourself (use of expletives on my talk page set aside). In response to your suggestion, I would flippantly suggest my opinion, which is that your privileges should removed - Wikipedia is no place for foul mouthed attacks on editors. I am not able to respond to any new fictitious accusations as my account is still blocked - hence the unblock request.-JG (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comprehension of the rules doesn't need to be "questioned": you're blocked because you've egregiously broken them, so there is no questioning involved. Care to point to these expletives on your talk page? I'm not seeing them. LjL (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LjL, Have you read the the conversations on my talkpage & programmatic media tak?-JG (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I see no expletives on your talk page (i.e. here), contrary to what you just said (except for the quotation that was added a moment ago). Can you point to any? LjL (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If you are going to continue to complain about expletive use to try to distract from your misbehavior allow me to quote it in full.

Why are you still blowing off explanations with things like "PMC etc.". Has any of this discussion mislead you to believe that anyone here knows what the fuck that means?!!?? Show a source with the definition you want to use. The text in the lead JohnInDC wrote is linked to a source, what you wrote was not. Without a sourced definition of what this article is about I will nominate it for AfD for failure to meet general notability guidelines or simply WP:BOLDly stub it and move it to Programmatic buying which is something we do have a RS definition for. [2]

I have even given a diff so next time you wish to bring up the single time I have used that word on this web site you will have a convenient reference, which I strongly suggest you use, else I will consider you to be attempting to cast aspersions by somehow implying I abused you with multiple instances of foul language. Jbh ^Talk 14:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.-JG (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jbhunley's use of the word "fuck" was not inappropriate in the context in which he used it. If he'd told you to "fuck off" or said "you don't know fuck" it would have been quite different because the insult / personal attack would have been aimed at you, but he did not. We even have an article on the exact expression he used (What the fuck), we have wikipedia essays in similar style (Not giving a fuck) and we have the policy that Wikipedia is not censored. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

of course. -JG (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you disagreeing with yourself? You previously described it as a "foul mouthed attack". RichardOSmith (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout this whole episode (on the topic page, on its Talk page, on his Talk page here, in the Adminstrators' Noticeboard, Jugdeve has consistently demonstrated a large appetite for edit warring and wikilawyering, and very little for actual collaborative editing (rejecting even punctuation corrections!). We don't know if this is specific to programmatic media or a general tendency. So a long topic ban, as Jbhunley has suggested, seems like a good way forward. --Macrakis (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling Macrakis... -JG (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Macrakis: I won't oppose a topic ban but based on Jugdev's behavior I have modified my comment at ANI to supporting a complete site ban/indef rather than just a topic ban. I hate to give up on an editor but Jugdev's recent behavior here combined with the likely SOCKing and attempted disruption at AfD has exhausted my patience. - They even feel the need to point out it was spelling correction they would not accept rather than punctuation. Way too combative and they have not shown any willingness/ability to modify their behavior or learn. Jbh ^Talk 00:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jugdev is good at wasting our time. Maybe that's his goal. --Macrakis (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have already pin pointed my opinion about the behaviour (expletives set aside) of a group of editors. Rules must apply to all. We are still pending administrator involvement on conversations about numerous concerns that I have raised about the editors concerned.-JG (talk) 08:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any discussion about your account being unblocked needs to focused on your conduct and yours alone. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you C.Fred, I have requested another unblock and maintained the focus on my conduct alone as instructed.-JG (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jugdev (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions moving forward-JG (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given your prior block history, I would not feel comfortable unblocking early based on this assertion alone. --slakr^\ talk / 04:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Programmatic media

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A little help

Maybe I can help you somewhat. You seem to have some misunderstandings of how Wikipedia works, and once you understand it better, maybe you can write an unblock request that will be accepted.

Administrators do not judge content on Wikipedia. As alluded to by their title, administrators work primarily on the administrative parts of the encyclopedia. This would include blocking disruptive users, deleting articles, and setting page protection to prevent vandalism. They are not super-moderators who judge content disputes or the worthiness of articles, though some of their tasks may superficially resemble these actions. Whether to delete a page or not is generally decided by the community, and then an administrator enacts their consensus.
One contests a proposed deletion (prod) by removing the template. However, can not remove the template when an article is nominated at articles for deletion (AfD), a separate process. A prod is a streamlined process that depends on a lack of opposition; thus, anyone can halt the process at any time. AfD, on the other hand, is a consensus-based discussion that occurs in a centralized location. To contest the deletion of an article at AfD, you would make policy-based arguments at the linked page. In this case, it's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programmatic media. Removing the AfD template reduces visibility of the deletion discussion and as a result is considered disruptive; you can not halt the discussion by removing the template.
The rules at the dispute resolution noticeboard have been explained to you several times. You filed three malformed requests there. It would probably help if you learned how Wikipedia's various processes and noticeboards work. Some Wikipedians have a short fuse, and they will conflate issues of inexperience with intentional disruption. One possibility is mentorship. You may wish to consider this.

Now that you hopefully understand what you did wrong, you should look at the guide to appealing blocks and see what is expected in an unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Programmatic out of home listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Programmatic out of home. Since you had some involvement with the Programmatic out of home redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fiddle Faddle 10:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of media agencies

The article List of media agencies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single sourced, two year old single point in time list from deadlink source of uncertain reliability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnInDC (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for per a community consensus to site ban. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unbanned, you may do so after reading the guide to appealing blocks and WP:UNBAN, then follow the process listed to appeal a ban. —SpacemanSpiff 06:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Indus Sonica

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Indus Sonica requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Rayman60 (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More info on block

@Finlay McWalter: Please can you summarise the reasons behind the block on my account. It all seems to be lost in the wealth of conversations above and I wanted a summarised version. Any chance of doing this? -JG (talk)

You were banned by the community as a result of the discussion which is linked above, a discussion you took an active part in. I'm not going to spend my time summarising a discussion when you can read it yourself. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 11:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure @Finlay McWalter: without getting into too much detail, who should I speak with regarding an unblock?

-JG (talk)

Wikipedia:Banning policy#Review and reversal of bans -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 11:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Finlay McWalter:

-JG (talk)