User talk:J. M./Archive 1

Re: DivX

What are you talking about? Of course DivX is a format. A codec is by definition a format. Adding "mpeg-4" needlessly obfuscates what is intended to be a basic description, which gets to the point and defines the subject. Specifics are reserved for the rest of the article. -- Broken Arms Gordon 07:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi J.M., thanks for your edits at DivX, which are hopefully helping to reduce the confusion about mpeg-4 asp and the many different implementations of it. Looks like an otherwise thankless job.

Obviously, I think Broken Arms Gordon is mistaken in what he writes above. Snacky 04:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Xvid

I saw that you attributed the major edit on Xvid to me. I however did not make the major edit, I was simply cleaning up some of the issues (like spelling etc that you mentioned) with the major edit that was by the IP 201.6.16.70. Qutezuce 09:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes - sorry about that, my mistake, I mentioned it in the XviD Talk page. I apologize. J. M. 11:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for making the correction. Qutezuce 21:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

VLC

		The Original Barnstar
		About barnstars Thanks for your good work with editing VLC media player. --h2g2bob 04:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

AVI edit

Oops. Terribly sorry. Evidently I reverted something that the original author also reverted without noticing the direction of the last edit. --ToobMug 08:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Avid logo.PNG

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Avid logo.PNG. 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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 10:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Stage6

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Stage6, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

XVID free decoders

If we decide to remove links to decoders (which I believe do make sense in Wikipedia pages to some degree), we should be consistent and remove them all, including the Mac free decoder. So it should make sense to either keep decoder links for Win/Mac platforms, or not to have them at all. Maybe we should put this in voting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.143.84 (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This, again (and as always—no offense, but that's the way it is), shows you have no clue what you are talking about. The "Free Xvid video convert software" is not a Xvid decoder, it is a video transcoder that has nothing to do with Xvid.—J. M. (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry mate, English may be your first language, but your logic is broken, when you say that black is not black because it's black. I will request an arbitration on both your statement and your actions, resulting is blocking my IP address. Take care. 208.86.143.84 (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You have never responded to any of my comments. You have never been able to explain why you are reverting my edits (yet, you keep doing it, without explaining why). You have never explained why you keep adding obvious spam to Wikipedia (your previous comment proves it once again—as always, you didn't reply to my explanation at all). Yes, you are a spammer. Spamming is strictly forbidden in Wikipedia. You have never even tried to disprove anything that I wrote, for example on the article talk page. You are very obviously completely wrong in everything you are doing. Which is bad enough, but you keep doing it against the Wikipedia rules and spirit. This is why I'm notifying the administrators, too.—J. M. (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Go slowly

Saw the Xvid article (watching recent changes). While you may be correct, it looks like you're in an edit war -- I think you've over WP:3RR yourself, so getting admins involved could possibly get you both blocked. It's obvious you're making more effort in on the talk page (convinced me). But you might have to let the article sit with suspect link while you gather support from more editors to gain consensus. I know it's frustrating but give it time. Best. Gerardw (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. 208.86.143.84 has now been blocked from editing ([1]) and I hope this will put an end to his vandalism. If he ever decides to vandalise the article again (even if he decides to cheat again and uses yet another proxy with yet another IP address), I will revert it even if I break the three-revert rule, because reverting actions performed by banned users is a legitimate exception.—J. M. (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Xvid

Hello JM, I found that you're familiar with Xvid / Divx. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I'm downloading a movie from a website. It's in Xvid format. As soon as open the file (opens with WinRAR) it extracts the file, then asks for part 2 and subsequant parts. (I haven't finished downloading all parts). But instead of blindly downloading I was wondering if I would be able to play such a file. All I have in my PC are Windows Media Player 11 and Realplayer. Would these suffice? I understand this has nothing to do with Wikipedia but was hoping you help me out. Look forward to hearing from you. 60.50.67.240 (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Xvid is not a format, Xvid is a software library that encodes and decodes video in the MPEG-4 Part 2 format (Advanced Simple Profile). That is, video encoded with Xvid is MPEG-4 ASP video (not "Xvid video", it's not a "Xvid file", even though it's a very popular misconception to call it like that). Now, will you be able to play the file? This depends on two things: first, the file must be "real" and correctly encoded and downloaded, not a fake or corrupt (if you are downloading it from a reliable source, it should be OK), second, your playback software must support the AVI/MPEG-4 format. There are two groups of software video players: players with built-in decoders and players that use external decoders. Video players from the first group generally support MPEG-4 ASP video out of the box (for example VLC or SMPlayer). Video players that use external decoders usually rely on 3rd party decoders. For example, if you want to play MPEG-4 ASP video in Windows Media Player and other players that use the DirectShow framework, you must install an MPEG-4 ASP decoder—like the DivX codec, Xvid, 3ivx or ffdshow-tryouts, because there is no MPEG-4 decoder included in Microsoft Windows. This should change in the upcoming Windows 7 operating system which already includes MPEG-4 ASP and AVC (H.264) decoders.—J. M. (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And one more thing—you can check whether the file is playable even if you haven't finished downloading all parts. Players like (S)MPlayer are able to play even a partially downloaded file, and the RAR archiver can extract at least the first part of the AVI file (if you don't have part 2, 3 etc.— even part 1 does not have to be fully downloaded, it can simply extract what you have so far).—J. M. (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the detailed explanation JM!! I've downloaded 4 our of 8 parts as of now and will proceed downloading SM Player before continuing as you adviced. Again many thanks and may god bless :-)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I hereby award J.M. this barnstar for his kindness in sharing his knowledge with me. 60.50.69.8 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

SUPER

Sorry for the disruptive editing. I'll find sources for points I write. Thanks for the help. Flaming Grunt 06:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

VLC media player -- Bulldozer logo

You removed the writing about the bulldozer logo saying that it was an April fools' joke, but it is not so. You will find more information on the VideoLAN news page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.0.116 (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, sign your posts. Secondly, place your posts at the bottom of talk pages, not at the top. Thirdly, read the VLC news page more carefully (especially the last sentence that tells you to look at the date it was written). It was an April Fools' joke.—J. M. (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

x264 is not a framework

Hi J. M., I've noticed you've reverted my edit on x264 on 11:30, 8 July 2009 (x264 is not a framework). I made the edit because the infobox showed "multimedia framework" as the type; if you know of something better to put here, please do so.--C xong (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. x264 is a video encoder, that is, a software product (a library or an application) that encodes video. Wikipedia does not have an article named "Video encoder", so I changed the genre in the infobox to "video encoder" and linked it to video compression, as "video encoder" is simply a redirect to the video compression article anyway. Wikipedia has an article called video codec, but x264 is only an encoder, it does not decode video. It is definitely not a multimedia framework, which is something that handles codecs and other things. That is, codecs can be used in those frameworks (for example, x264 can be used in the Video for Windows framework), but the codecs themselves are not frameworks.—J. M. (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of SUPER (software)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is SUPER (software). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SUPER (software). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense?

I wouldn't call what I added nonsense. The guy was on a tear vandalizing pages (finally got blocked five minutes ago) and I was trying to clean up after him. Deleting the page wouldn't have affected your account, it just would have returned it to the non-existent state so you could create it yourself later if you so chose. Sorry if it confused you, but the intent was not to add nonsense. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I didn't know it would have returned it to the non-existent state. So I added it again. Thanks.—J. M. (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Just didn't want you to get the wrong idea. That, and having vandalism be the first edit in your personal user page just seems sad. :-) This way, the history is gone if and when you eventually recreate it (aside from a deeply buried admin log note indicating that you requested deletion of an earlier iteration). --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of DXGM (FourCC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, DXGM (FourCC), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DXGM (FourCC). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fleet Command (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you watch the AfD since you don't edit that often here, but I left a comment there. Pcap ping 14:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

AVS Video Editor

Please add AVS Video Editor also as an AfD. CE --62.178.80.242 (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the proposed deletion and AfD processes should not be run in parallel. You choose either the former (for "uncontroversial", more obvious cases), or the latter (when discussion is needed). But if somebody removes the {{prod}} template (and I guees only the article author would do it, as I think it's coincidentally also the software author), I will add it as an AfD.—J. M. (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: AVS Video Converter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:76.229.180.18 You're kidding right? I find a valid demonstration of how to use the features of this software and you remove it. The style and content on that page is no different than most of the already existing reference links (1, 2, 3, 6, and 8 specifically).

My link actually pointed to some unique content instead of a pile of copy & paste text from the AVS Media home page with an affiliate link thrown in.

If my link "violated" terms, show me that you have some integrity and remove those others as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.180.18 (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not kidding. The message on your talk page contains helpful links to Wikipedia guidelines for external links. Please read them. Especially the section that explains what a reliable source is.—J. M. (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: AVS Video Editor

OK, we are out. Actually you is not a regular admin too. I'm confused that why the same article [2]and link can exsist. wikipeida is still a fair place? you give your too much subjective thinking in it. Martinezale (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Juliancolton – Talk 17:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Hello

Hello, thank you for your appreciation. I am already registered - Special:Contributions/Kuyrebik . But I used this account only if I needed something not allowed to unregistered users. I already used several similar IP addresses (I have no static adress - only dynamic address) - e.g. Special:Contributions/89.173.68.106, Special:Contributions/89.173.67.3, Special:Contributions/188.167.27.119, Special:Contributions/89.173.65.226, Special:Contributions/89.173.64.200(but as I see, here was also one edit made by someone else on 5 February 2010, who used the same ISP and the same IP). I understand it is not very good to use a dynamic address - because the same IP address can be used by different people. --89.173.64.165 (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

QuickTime File Format

Hi,

Thanks for your changes here. Much appreciated. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Avidemux article is need of your attention

Hi, J.M.

The article Avidemux is in a poor state. It needs update, more sources and cleanup. It's your area of specialty isn't it? After all, you are affiliated with Avidemux project, aren't you?

Fleet Command (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, FleetCommand. I agree the article is not in a good state, although I think it's much better than it used to be. But if some of the claims in the article cannot be supported by sources, then it's time to remove them. Also, sentences like "a person known as Mean, who often frequents the Avidemux forums. The Avidemux project is open to user input..." are unnecessary in an encyclopedic article. So I would get rid of the superfluous prose ("The straightforward user interface is designed for convenience and speed") and keep mainly the dry facts.

Yes, I am a little bit involved in the project—I am not an Avidemux developer, but I made some minor contributions. That's why I do not edit the article too much, for a potential conflict of interests. :-) I can make some simple edits like correcting inaccurate or outdated information, or I could try adding some sources, but if you can find any sources or do some cleanup (including removing dubious, unverifiable information), then by all means do it.—J. M. (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This sentence: "Compared to the 2.3 and earlier versions, Avidemux 2.4 offers 3 user interfaces: GTK+, shell and Qt 4." Isn't it outdated? I have Avidemux 2.5 in front of me right now and it has only one user interface. Fleet Command (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Avidemux still has three user interfaces. But the GTK+ GUI is not bundled with the official Windows builds anymore, it is targeted solely at Linux/BSD users now (there is no "official" GUI for Linux, so all three UIs are supported on Linux). The Windows builds contain only the Qt (avidemux2.exe) and command-line (avidemux2_cli.exe) versions.—J. M. (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

RE: Queue manager

Hi, I added links to two queue manager applications (which don't seem to be advised against by WP:ELNO) to the Queue manager page, because I felt it added value to people who use Wikipedia to get things done. I see many "List of Software Type" pages (such as List of optical disc authoring software), which are left undisturbed because people use them every day. Since the Queue manager article is a stub, I felt it would be overkill to create such a list page because it is only a stub. Taking WP:BOLD into account, I added two useful external links.

Sincerely,
Jeff Carpenter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.2.104 (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not how links to software product should be added to articles. Firstly, they do not explain the context— the External links section just says "Gearman" and "Beanstalk". How is the reader supposed to know what that means? Secondly, adding links to specific software products is usually (in 99.9% of cases) something that only spammers do. And it actually is advised against in the Wikipedia guideline:

"Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject."—obviously, a website about a particular software product is more specific than the general subject of the article, so that's not the type of things that should be in the External links section. An external link to a product home page should be added only if the article is about the product itself.

Furthermore, adding a list of queue managers in the External links section is only masking a stand-alone list as an External links section, so the proper way of doing it is simply including a list of products in the article, or a template, or a adding a category (it does not have to be a "List of" article, see for example Media player (application software)—the article can explain the subject and then list several notable products as examples). This also means the following applies:

"External links as entries in stand-alone lists. List entries should always have non-redirect articles on Wikipedia or a reasonable expectation that such an article is forthcoming, and thus be internally-linked only."—this is also explained in WTAF, and it does not apply only to stand-alone lists. If the product is notable, then it can have its own Wikipedia article. If it has its own Wikipedia article, then you can use a direct link to its article, and then there is no need to use an external link, and therefore no need to use the External links section. External links to non-notable products should always be avoided. If the product is not notable, it should not be mentioned at all.

So generally, links to software products do not belong in the External links section.—J. M. (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding DivX Plus HD

Hello, J. M. How do you do, lord of the multimedia section of Wikipedia?

Look, I need a helping hand with DivX Plus HD. The materials given in the tables may not be reliable and need to be double-checked with the source. I'm already into it but I also got a life as well as some responsibilities on Wikimedia Commons. I think two working on this will be much efficient than one.

What do you say? Can you help?

Thanks in advance, Fleet Command (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks J. M. That was a lot of help you did. I'll take care of myce.com and see what I can do about descriptions. Just one slight matter: When you change dates in a sort tag, please make sure you change both instances, OK?

For example, this wrong:

{{sort|2010-09-30|30 September 2009}}

It should be like this:

{{sort|2009-09-30|30 September 2009}}

But again, thanks. That was a lot of help. Fleet Command (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Reception

Hey man, cool down. Why do you hate so much? You're too determined to delete my article. hehe. Why did you remove the reception section? you say This stuff (random user reviews) does not belong in Wikipedia. But I did not include any random user reviews, I just showed an aggregated score with a general impression, because I've seen it like this over and over on wikipedia. Come on. Peace man.Greeen (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't hate and I don't need to cool down. Please do not comment on me and focus on the topic, just like I (and other Wikipedia editors) do. Thank you.—J. M. (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, J. M., I too, perceive your comments as being heated. I sincerely think you really could use some improvements in your social relations. Please consider revising your language. Yes, I think "cooling down" is a good term.

Please try to be more forgiving on newcomers, especially Greeen. He is a newcomer around here – at least practically if not technically – so I think it is prudent to treat his comments far less severely. People like Greeen require motivation to stay in Wikipedia and help improving it. Routing them out so early by frightening them with policies and guidelines is absolutely the wrong way to go.

Fleet Command (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I understand your concern, however, I don't think it is accurate and fair. The above reaction to Greeen's comment was not frightening or threatening at all and did not point him to any policy or guideline. It was just a very polite and civil request. It might be useful to review what happened:

1. Greeen added his own summary of reviews from an unreliable source (anonymous user reviews): [3].

2. I reverted his edit, as it, in my opinion, did not adhere to the verifiability policy, because summaries of anonymous user reviews do not belong in Wikipedia articles. There was no heat or hate involved, and my edit summary did not say anything personal toward Greeen.[4]

3. Greeen came to my talk page and asked me why I hate so much (?) and to cool down (?) Again, all I did was reverting his edit. There was nothing personal involved in that. I'm sure you know that reverting edits like that is a routine thing that happens every day on Wikipedia, and that reverting an edit does not imply hate or heat, so personal comments like that are unjustified and uncalled for.

4. I replied to Greeen's comment explaining that there was no hate or heat involved and asked him to refrain from making personal comments—and nothing else than that. I did not threaten him with anything, I was not rude to him, I did not point him to any Wikipedia guideline or policy, I did not bite him, and he was not a newcomer (he registered on Wikipedia in 2006). All I did was, in the most polite and civil manner possible (notice the words "please" and "thank you"), ask him to refrain from commenting on me, and to comment on the topic instead. This is in line with the standard Wikipedia way of doing things—the first "warning" should be gentle, polite and forgiving, without mentioning the word "warning". When it does not help, and the mistake is repeated, there comes the second warning which can include the word "warning" and link to a specific guideline. Which is what happened on the deletion discussion page— Greeen was making personal comments again[5] (commenting on you and me instead of commenting on the issue, in a rather derogatory manner, accusing you of dishonesty and cheating, i.e. commenting in the discussion because you are a fan of mine, instead of commenting because you really mean what you say), and again, it was unfounded and wrong. So this time, as it was already the second time, I pointed him to the official Wikipedia policy that says "Comment on content, not on the contributor". I did that because I wanted to show him that the "Comment on content, not on the contributor" quote is not something I made up, but an official Wikipedia policy (not a guideline, but a policy) that all editors should follow. And again, I did not threaten him with anything.

So, with all due respect, I can't see anything wrong with my behaviour in this particular case. Yes, I may be wrong in many other things (and I'm sure I am), but I don't think there was anything wrong with this one. Greeen made a mistake, was very gently reminded of it, and then he repeated the mistake, so he was reminded of it again.

Anyway, thanks for your comment, I appreciate it (an I'm not being ironic), and of course, no hard feelings from me.—J. M. (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome, J. M. I too appreciate your response. (Between me and you, it is definitely better that I expected. :) However, I'm concerned that I failed to communicate my message properly. So, please let me try one more time.

First, I do not deny that there is absolutely nothing legally wrong with your behavior in regard to Greeen, at least to the extent that Wikipedia policies and U.S. laws mandate. And I do acknowledge that Greeen, taken strictly legally, have done things that are wrong.

However, I believe that your behavior, although not wrong, are still not perfect for veteran of Wikipedia. If you excuse my frankness, you have been harsh with Greeen. He is a newcomer around here and it is hard for him to see his greatest contribution deleted.

So, ignore some of his distasteful comments; he may be emotional. After all, me and you are veterans of Wikipedia and has grown impervious to these comments. Give him some rope. Instead of being harsh, be kind. Yes, nominate his article for deletion, but do it kindly. Let him fire a few emotional shots into your impervious armor; trust me, doing so is an investment that repays in long run.

Second, your comments in the AfD are also heated. If you yourself do not feel so, allow me to turn your attention to number of people (besides Greeen and I) who took your comments for being objectionable: (1) Administrator UltraExactZZ; (2) scope_creep; (3) Handschuh. Now, if you have sincerely asked yourself "What's wrong?" and have received no answer as to something being wrong, I believe it is time you ask a third person. Administrator UltraExactZZ can be a good candidate, although you can also contact a non-involved party or even request an RFC on your own conduct. Get to the bottom of it, dear J. M.: Find out why so many people have perceived you as overreacting.

With regards, Fleet Command (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my comments to Greeen: Yes, I might have ignored it. Ignoring people's comments is certainly an option. Basically, there are three ways of reacting to personal comments or attacks:

1. Reacting angrily and personally

2. Reacting rationally with no emotions, no personal comments and strictly to-the-point

3. No reaction at all

I usually prefer No. 2, sometimes No. 3. Now, in the first case, when Greeen wrote that message to my talk page ("Why do you hate so much" etc.), I thought that ignoring it, not replying to it, might be considered offensive, so I chose the second option: a dry, to-the-point reply, where I intentionally refrained from any references to Greeen as a person, and formulated it in the most polite way I could. Now, I understand that some people actually see this as a harsh, offensive style: when they see a reply to a personal, heated comment, they are expecting it to be personal and heated, too (option No. 1). And when the reply fails to deliver that, they feel disappointed, because it feels cold, impersonal and heartless to them. So they sometimes take it as an offense (as if the person wanted to gain an unfair advantage with his cold reply, like "You see? I'm better than you, I don't make any personal comments!"), even though it was never meant that way. So the emotionless reply may infuriate them even more. Anyway, ignoring Greeen was certainly an option, I don't deny that. It just feels to me that both options are more or less equally valid. But my opinion on that is not fixed and may change with time.

For the last paragraph, I think you are mixing two separate things: my communication with Greeen, and my involvement in the AfD discussion. But then, I know my definition of the word "heated" is different from the way some other people see it (partially explained in the previous paragraph), so I won't comment on that too much. But I might perhaps digress a little bit, if you don't mind—as a member of WikiProject Spam, I am mostly dealing with spam and vandalism on Wikipedia these days. Indeed, the vast majority of my contributions to Wikipedia in the last couple of years has been dealing with spammers and vandals (so no, my "lord of the multimedia section" years are over :-), I don't have too much time for it anymore). And so, let's say I gained quite a lot of experience and, dare I say, expertise (what a pompous word! :-)), with these things and various recurring patterns over the years, various tactics used by various users, spammers, and the way admins deal with them. Now, don't get me wrong—I generally trust the admins in what they're doing, and I think the rules and procedures here make a lot of sense. But if I might pick one area where they sometimes fail to do their job properly, where they are being a bit lazy sometimes, up to the point that it's hurting Wikipedia, it is dealing with spammers and vandals. In my experience, they are sometimes too soft (meaning the official policies allow or sometimes even tell them to be harder), which allows spam and vandalism to flourish. The AfD discussions is one area, where, in my experience, the official policies are sometimes ignored. For example, even when the AfD guidelines say that the "voting" is in fact not voting, and that the admins should always consider the validity of the comments instead of the number of votes, what often (or maybe even usually) happens is that they simply close the AfD based on the Keep vs. Delete ratio, and disregard the reasoning, because that would mean additional work for them, checking things etc. Yes, I understand they are busy (and I admire the vast amount of work they are doing, some of them seem to be working on the administrative tasks 24/7/365). But I think it is unfortunate. So the reason I'm saying this is that, hopefully, you might perhaps understand where my frustration from some things that have been happening for years comes from.

P.S. I don't know if you want me to post the Talkback templates on your talk page every time, so if you don't want that, or want me to post the replies on your talk page, please say so.—J. M. (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I see. Okay, see you around.

And no, I don't mind talkbacks. Feel comfortable.

Fleet Command (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving to GA status!

Hello, J. M.

Still fighting vandalism? How about doing something different for change?

I was checking DivX article. It has problems but it can be made a Good Article easily! It just needs to meet Good article criteria. (There is a good essay that helps us: Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles And a good tool too: Peer Reviewer.) Since you have a background in this area, I think you can be of great help. Fleet Command (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Fleet Command. Yeah, vandalism never stops. :-)

I'll see if I can make some improvements. Actually, I've never helped to make any article a GA, so I may not have the best sense of what exactly a GA needs, but reading the GA criteria gives me a couple of concerns:

1. Well-written: the wording may be a bit awkward at places...
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: I think at least some of the claims in the History section can be succesfully challenged. See the ambiguous history question on the talk page – especially the 2000-2001 grey era shortly before and after DivXNetworks was born. It is very difficult to find sources that explain when and what exactly happened. And the article does not explain it very clearly. OpenDivX was initially created by Project Mayo. That was 2000. Some of the founding DivX members, like Jerome Rota and Joe Bezdek, were initially Project Mayo members. Then, DivXNetworks was formed. Probably in 2001. I remember the time when it was not very clear what was happening, who was doing what and what belongs where. DivXNetworks was presented as the commercial alter ego of OpenDivX, Project Mayo also included a link to DivXNetworks, and for some time, the two projects seemed to coexist. But how exactly was the open-source project (both OpenDivX and Project Mayo) taken over by the commercial DivXNetworks company remains a mystery. The DivX people didn't seem to be very open about it, lots of obfuscatory marketing text from them everywhere, lots of controversy, accusations and heat from the other side (the open-source community), but we need encyclopedic, reliable sources.
3. Broad in its coverage: "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". Now, I think the article goes into way too much detail. The profiles (which are tagged as outdated, BTW), and especially the DivX software. I don't think the main article about DivX need to list every format the DivX Player supports, for example. I think at least some of the software products could stand their own articles (which could be more detailed), while the main DivX article could just briefly describe them, and include links to their separate articles.

—J. M. (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right about items #1 and #2. But don't worry about the third item: A friend of mine who often writes GA reviews tells me that comprehensiveness, (which is a by the way a criteria for Featured Articles,) is completely different from unnecessary details. "Unnecessary details" applies when the article covers (at length) details that audience do not want to know (i.e., do not care) while skips vital information that everyone looks for in the article. For example, look at Windows Media Player and Sound Recorder (Windows); you'll find out what unnecessary details is! So don't need worrying about profiles and file formats; but if the reviewer objected, I can put the GA on hold, remove those section and resume. But again, I think they count toward comprehensiveness. Fleet Command (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

OK then. For the unnecessary detail: the WMP article looks impressive, indeed. :-) I didn't mean that the level of detail is too high in the context of the DivX Player section, I just thought it was too high in the context of the DivX article (which, in my view, should mainly focus on the DivX history, the codec, and and the DivX product line). For example, the Microsoft Windows article only briefly mentions WMP as a part of the operating system (because the OS is what the article is about), but then WMP has its own separate article, which is free to include as much detail about the player as possible, because WMP is its main and only topic. But if the GA reviewer is fine with it, then of course it's OK.—J. M. (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

DVDVideoSoft Tag

Hello, J.M. You have put a db-g4 tag to DVDVideosoft page. It's written that the page "was previously deleted via a deletion discussion, is substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". I absolutely disagree with this statement, because previosly the page didn't contain any links or references and therefore was considered as not notable. However, now is does contain the necessary references which are considered notable by Wiki reliable sources guideline. As the Wikipedia:Notability (software) page says that "Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria:

• The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement. See following section for more information.
• ....etc.

" This issue is also discussed here: Talk:DVDVideoSoftand i would be very happy to get the feedback. Noelle pozzi (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of External Links

Hello J.M.

Please accept my sincerest apologies if I have violated any of the rules in the past. Frankly, my intention was to add links that I genuinely believed would add value to the article e.g. Paul Rand's posthumous induction into the One Club Hall of Fame. In all honesty, I did not have enough time to be able to go through the guidelines in detail, and maybe in the process I overlooked some key points. After having read the guidelines in detail, I now understand why some of my links were considered inappropriate and were hence removed.

I will keep the guidelines in mind moving forward.

Cheers

Z-1411 (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

deletion notices

I see you've been adding deletion notices to articles without notifying the original author of the material. This is technically permitted, but is considered impolite, and almost everyone does place notices. If you use the It is extremely important that we deal with new editors in a friendly manner, and give them a chance to fix their material. Wikipedia will gradually die without a continuing influx of new people, and even those who have come here to promote a product may learn to contribute usefully. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not required, and after many years of dealing with the massive amount of spam and spammers on Wikipedia, I have gathered more than enough experience to know exactly when and why I don't do it and why it is not impolite or discouraging (Wikipedia will gradually die because of the continuing influx of new spammers, not because of the lack thereof), and I will not do it in the future in some cases, until the policy changes and it becomes compulsory. But feel free to discuss and request the change on the policy talk page.—J. M. (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Flash animation

Can you please tell me why did you remove my link to the freeware software, when there are other links to commercial software in the same article? There are obviously some rules that I don't understand, so please clear it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratkob (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:External links.—J. M. (talk)

Comparison of video player software

Please see Talk:Comparison of video player software -Lexein (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent Minor Edits

I apologize for the misinterpretation of the minor edits. Thank you for contacting me and not simply reverting the changes without notification. I am relatively new and haven't made many edits so I definitely want to learn and do everything correctly. I don't think my reasons were completely unfounded, so let me explain. Also, please provide some feedback regarding what I can do to improve these kinds of edits in the future.

Adding a link to already existing text or adding a single row to a table didn't seem like a big deal. From the definition of a minor edit, the phrase I keyed in on was "could never be the subject of a dispute". The links I provided went directly to the correct website for that company. To take one of the recent examples which you reverted, if you do a web search for something like "JPEG XR toolkit" or "JPEG 2000 SDK", LEADTOOLS will show up very high in the search results.

Gregtheross (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding content (whether "a single row to a table", which is just a euphemism for "a product", or an external link) into an article should never be marked as a minor edit. It does not matter whether the added external link is correct or not. Only corrections, simple formating changes or vandalism reverts can be marked as a minor edit. The "When not to mark an edit as a minor edit" section in Help:Minor edit explicitly says: "Adding or removing references or external links in an article".—J. M. (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Gregtheross (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policies

Thanks for recommending these resources. Msml (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Comic Book Archive Article

Good work on the Comic Book Archive article...

It now links to readers that have absolutely no meaning whatsoever in the real world of comic reading for Windows (except CDisplay)/Mac/Mobiles (Google "comic reader" and see if you find any of the referenced programs). Because some program slipped through the notability standards in earlier days does not make them notable (especially in the context of comic readers).

Wikipedia should strive to give a user the best information and not some links to general/old readers that because of their generality/oldness made it into wiki. If you're new to electronic comics, this article will now just misinform you.

For a good list see the recent lifehacker top 5 comic reader article.

I really tried to contribute to this article in the past. But people coming in having no clue about eComics and deleting valuable information questions ones involvement.

Oh also also cool to remove the ComicRack reference, the only reference that was actually sourced with an outside reference (PCWorld Magazine in this case).

Thanks.

--Solano2k (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem was that all of the removed items consisted of external to the product home pages. External links do not belong in the article body. They can be used as references, though (listed in the External links section). Another problem is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of everything that exists, even if it is relevant to the article. An unrestricted list of products is an easy target for spammers. That's why, generally, notability and verifiability is required. The best option is always when the list consists of things that have their own Wikipedia article. If they don't, then at least the list should not consist of external links. It may contain references, and you are right, ComicRack contained the PCWorld reference, which seemed to be useful and relevant, so I restored it (without the external link). Thanks for pointing that out. If you want to re-add other items, then by all means do it, but please do it in a non-spammy way (no external links, preferably notable products having their own article, or at least with a reliable source as a reference).—J. M. (talk) 10:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Merry Christmas!
	Best wishes, Fleet Command (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of audio player software

Hello J.M.,

I can see you've have removed XMPlay from the list of audio players. Is it because there was a link to not existing article (my mistake) or there is something else? If I remove the square brackets around the name, would it be OK to add it again? I think it is a good player, based on a good platform Antonski (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The most common inclusion criterion for the "List of..." or "Comparison of..." articles aka stand-alone lists is "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia". In other words, red links should not appear in these articles. Removing the brackets does not solve the problem, because the article still does not exist and it does not make the product notable. And the fact that the XMPlay article has already been deleted for "no indication of importance" and "unambiguous advertising or promotion" gives little hope that this would change in the future. Listing only important products that are notable and have their own Wikipedia article (it does not matter whether the product is good or not, the only thing that matters is notability) is the only way to make it verifiable and to protect these articles from spammers (who really like advertising their products in them). The article cannot list all players that have ever been written.—J. M. (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK then, I didn't know that such article has already been deleted. Cheers - Antonski (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

DVD

Hi JM, Thanks for undoing my edit at DVD. I don't quite understand what happened there. I must have been on drugs or something. I was actually trying to revert vandalism and ended up creating it. I award myself a FAIL. :-( Jschnur (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Things like this happen to everyone. :-)—J. M. (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Prezi

Hi, you informed me, that my addon to prezi about offline player violets the rules of wikipedia in case of Advertising. I am sorry about this but this was never to my mind. I have re-read the content of version with my changes at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prezi&oldid=516462060 and can not agree to you. Never mind, I am only interested in letting people know, that there is an offline linux player available. If you look on a lot of community and prezis help, you find people asking about this feature because it is not natively available by prezi yet.

Whatever, is it ok for you to just add the link to the GitHub Wiki page as it was accepted on the german site (see "External Links" at: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prezi)?

Thanks for a short answer. If you send me an ok, I would append the changes again to the Prezi page

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Freudenberg (talk • contribs) 07:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding just the link might be OK. However, please make sure that you do it in a sensible way. Your edit, the way it was written, was just clear, unambiguous advertising. It was unacceptable in so many ways that it deserves a more deatailed explanation:

1. You seem to have a conflict of interest, which means you should refrain from editing content related to your product on Wikipedia. It is not required, but definitely recommended.
2. The external link was added as plain text with no markup. But even when you add it as a proper link, it should be added as a reference, not as a plain link (external links links should not be used in the article body).
3. The product should preferably be notable enough. If it isn't, then you should at least not dedicate a whole section to it. Even one full sentence may be too much. See Due and undue weight—you should "treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". And when you create a new section, please make sure the section is placed somewhere where it actually makes sense in the article.
4. Second-person pronouns like "you" and "your" are not encyclopedic, and in the case of adding a product to an article in Wikipedia, smell of promotional language.
5. The word "we" in "we have also added some nice addons" suggests that Wikipedia or at least the Prezi article is owned by the PreziPlayer authors (and that the reader is somehow supposed to know that).
6. Expressions like "nice addons" or "easy and user friendly gui" fail to meet the Neutral point of view policy which is strictly required.
7. The edit includes instructional language (how to download/install the program etc.) that, again, is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. See What Wikipedia is not.

Furthermore, please make sure you use proper capitalization in your edit (Linux, not linux, GUI, not gui, etc.)

So, I don't really think you should add the link to your product in the Prezi article (or anywhere else on Wikipedia). If you really, really think you should, then please make sure you understand all the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thanks.—J. M. (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Hi J.M.,

I am following your direction but I am very sad about this.

I will also remove the ink from the german site, because I do not want to disregard the policies of Wikipedia.

Thanks for your answers and sorry for taken your time

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Freudenberg (talk • contribs) 10:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

FFMPEG

Hi J.M I added couple of sentences of definition to the "FFMPEG" page and cited the resource where I found the definition. The link from I cited is a genuine link and talks more about FFMPEG, its features and overview. Can you add back my changes. Thanks and Regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boneyp123 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Boneyp123. No, I won't add it back. First, your addition was completely useless and redundant. Second, the "genuine link" was a blog, and blogs are generally not acceptable sources for Wikipedia. And third, the purpose of the blog is selling services related to FFmpeg, which clearly suggests that this was the only reason this "genuine link" was added. Spamming is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for editing article "GOM Audio"

Hi J.M,

I have recently found that you have recently made changes on my recently edited article GOM Player, and added the information in "See also" of the article. According to you the editing is quite unacceptable (as you mentioned), i accept this.

But the thing is can you also make changes in GOM Audio article ? There is something in the article which would be not accepted (i think so).

I HOPE YOU WILL DEVELOP IT

If you have any queries please contact me User:Himanis Das (User_talk:Himanis Das) —Preceding undated comment added 09:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Blu-ray Player Software

Hi J.M, I noticed that you redirected my page Blu-ray player software, which can not be shown. I am sorry that I have reverted and undid this edit. I had left a message, somehow, I did not see it later, did not know why. This item is quite an independent one, not just the software standard, so I do not think that it should be merged with software standard. I hope that when people google this, they can easily find this item and get what they want to know, not the too much information and long, complicated article in Blu-ray Disc.

Hope you can understand and help me enrich this item.

If you have any question, please contact me User_talk:Emma.show —Preceding undated comment added 02:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

List of musicians from Quebec : leave Daniel Lavoie on it

Could you please explain why you took Daniel Lavoie's name from "List of musicians from Quebec"? Although born in Manitoba, his musical career is exclusively in Quebec (40 years and counting). I wish a more precise topic "List of Quebec musicians" existed, but there is a redirect from that one to "List of musicians from Quebec". I think with a note (born in Manitoba) such important Quebec musician as Daniel Lavoie should stay on the list. Quebec musicians who are not born in Quebec need to be accounted for. Besides, in this case Roch Voisin also needs to be removed from list - he comes from New Brunswick.

Here is the link to the revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_musicians_from_Quebec&diff=557914662&oldid=557891529 Paroles2000 (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it looks like I removed the wrong one. I thought it was a red link, but now I see the article exists. So I readded Daniel Lavoie and removed the actual red link. Thanks for the notice.—J. M. (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem, thank you, J.M.! Paroles2000 (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Rollback of Edits

Hi J.M.

I'd like to talk about the edits that were made to a few pages, why specifically they were rolled back, and how they can be better written so that they can remain. In my view we had added the EvoStream Media Server, for instance, as a software application which serves the Real_Time_Streaming_Protocol. It was not intended as an advertisement, but simple as an acknowledgement of that fact. I used our website as a reference, perhaps that was not appropriate? I tried to keep very much in-line with the information on the various pages regarding similar software, so I am confused a bit as to what differentiated my edits from those entries.

Thank you for the help and guidance!

BMeiss (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

In accordance with the external links guideline, external links should not be used in the body of an article. For the internal link, first of all, EvoStream Media Server is currently a red link, which means the article does not exist. So naturally red links do not belong in the See also section. They generally do not belong in stand-alone lists either ("List of..." or "Comparison of..." articles). The article should be written first—but only if the product meets the notability gudelines, that is, if it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Then the internal link can be added to other articles, but again, only when it is really helpful.—J. M. (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of useful External Link

Hello J.M.

I believe the link to the tutorial you have removed would add value to the article. It explain how to use the softwares described in the article. There is some external links like the one I add on the article and you have no problem with that :

   Time to Get a Home Theater PC
   Ultimate Home Theater PC Guide
   Guide to Building a Home Theater PC - Updated Monthly
   Differences between HTPC and PC

I really don't understand why you remove this link. Anyway it's you who decides ;)

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy9856 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS, WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT and WP:MINOR.—J. M. (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

New Standard Tuning

"The octave number increases by 1 upon an ascension from B to C (and not from G to A, as one might expect)." As one might expect, indeed. *slaps self* DoctorCaligari (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

QQ video

I redirected QQ video to Tencent QQ. It looks like someone is trying to create an article about one of their features but there probably won't be enough to warrant a standalone article. QQ is a big deal in China and other parts of Asia. Mkdw^talk 03:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

List_of_streaming_media_systems|List_of_streaming_media_systems#Software_as_a_service

Hi , i contributed a long time ago on wikipedia (tv shows). I tried to add an external link to a streaming provider in order to share the low price. What is the rules now on wikipedia to contribute? At that time it was anonymou,should i be authenticated with an account that i just created?

Thanks for your help Paul (pg2777)

I think Comparison of streaming media systems or Comparison of video hosting services is more appropriate for sharing details such as price. List of streaming media systems is just a list of links to Wikipedia articles, so there should be no external links in it.

Anyway, you do not have to be logged in to contribute to most articles. However, if your motivation is "to share the low price", then I do not think using a registered account would help. Remember, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for (self-)promotion, advertising or marketing. That's also why external links should normally be used only as references or in the External links section. They should not be used as list entries.

So if your motivation is genuine, that is, to improve the encyclopedia, feel free to add more details to the "Comparison of..." articles, even though they may not list the streaming providers. Or you can add new streaming providers to List of streaming media systems, but only if they are notable enough to have their own article on Wikipedia (no red links or external links).—J. M. (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

List of PDF Software

I don't believe the change notes are an appropriate place for a personal message - "please read the first sentence of the article" is personally directed and as such is not a helpful or descriptive reason for removing the entry. I won't reinstate it because you'll only remove it again, but at your request, I re-read the first sentence. As with the first time I read it, I cannot find any reason not to include items in the list that do not link to individual articles. If it is your intention that the article solely contains items that link to articles, perhaps you should re-word that first sentence. As it stands, that meaning is not in any way conveyed, since the use of the word "includes" does not imply exclusivity; quite often the opposite is in fact the case, for example "Sony's product range includes TVs and Hi-Fi equipment." Perhaps "comprises" might be a better choice of word for when you go to fix it, since that then signifies to the reader that there isn't anything other than linked articles in the list. Daedalus2097 (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Red5 Pro

To clarify, you're saying that if Red5Pro has a Wiki page and it proves the Red5 Pro product is created by the same people as Red5 (open source), you won't roll back the content? And if Kurento has a page, you won't roll back the content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.177.113.106 (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, if Red5 Pro has it own page (and the page does not get deleted due to lack of notability, which happens quite often), it does not matter whether it's created by the same people as Red5 (open-source). The same for Kurento. Generally, products in stand-alone lists, "list of..." or "comparison of..." articles, should be notable enough to have their own article on Wikipedia. So, of course, if they have their own articles, I won't revert the edits.—J. M. (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

oh,sorry.I did not offense.I'm beginner of Wikipedia.Also I'm not good at English. But I have a reliable source. My writing thing is true.It will be demonstrated February 22. If you have any opinion,please you use easy English.I didn't understand your'sentense a little. プレミアナガラ (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

No, your writing was not true, and you do not have any reliable source. You said 2 things:

1. That February 22 is the past (or present). No, February 22 is the future.
2. That the #15 ranking is current. No, it not verifiably not, as you can see on the official ATP website. Which is the only reliable source. His current ranking is still #19. He may become #15 on Monday February 22, but it has not happened yet, he is still #19. You cannot predict the future on Wikipedia and report is as something that has already happened.—J. M. (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

VirtualDub

Hello and thank you for reminding me what a minor edit was. I appreciated that. Florent ATo (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Comparison_of_iPod_managers

Hey J.M., today you undid my additions to the table of iPod-managers, commenting: "no articles, promontional ref". Would you be so kind to elaborate a little on what I did wrong?

thanks, Kai -- KaiKemmann (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Generally, stand-alone lists on Wikipedia ("List of..." or "Comparison of..." articles) should only contain items that have their own article on Wikipedia. That is, the lists should consist of links to existing articles. As for the promotional reference, Wikipedia relies on reputable sources. The reference was spammy, that is, a small insignificant article on an obscure commercial website selling products. That does not meet the encyclopedic standards required on Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that you have repeatedly been removing entries from the list, mostly quoting WP:STANDALONE, WP:WTAF and WP:EL.

Skimming through the content of these I did not really seem to find any point in WP:STANDALONE supporting the removal of those entries.

WP:WTAF starts off by saying: "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines."

WP:WTAF and WP:EL do support the removal of red links and possibly weblinks but not the removal of the whole entry.

See for example this passage from WP:WTAF:

"While lists (especially stand-alone list articles) can serve a navigational function, lists are primarily a form of encyclopedic content. Thus, an entry often may simply present encyclopedically relevant facts from the cited reliable sources and not link to a separate article on the narrow subtopic (which by itself might be encyclopedically relevant but fall short of independent notability) of that particular list entry. One of the main distinctions between lists and article categories in that lists may contain non-notable entries (though some high-level lists' inclusion criteria are not so broad)."

I have personally been looking for a suitable iPod manager for quite a while now and I am frequently surprised to find ever more -and often better- software serving this purpose.

When I feel the need to try a new program I love to be able to refer to this list and see which ones are worth considering.

And in doing that I prefer a comprehensive list before all other considerations such as style or conciseness.

Another point to perhaps consider is that it requires quite an effort to edit three large tables and research the details about each program in order to enter as much information as possible.

Seeing this being deleted by a third party who might not be as involved can be quite frustrating, to say the least.

best regards, Kai

PS: see also my entry on the talk-page of the article, if you like -- KaiKemmann (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Common selection criteria from WP:STANDALONE:

"Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia."

From WP:WTAF:

"It is this last reason that is the most problematic: "List of..." and "Comparison of..." type lists, both stand-alone and embedded, are often prone to spam and red-linking. In many cases nearly half of the edits are limited to adding spam and red links to the list. A large proportion of the later edits will be removing them, which, while critical to maintaining the quality of the page, is a tremendous waste of WP editor resources. Lists are used in Wikipedia to organize information, and sometimes for internal navigation. Lists with a primarily navigational purpose should only contain internally linked articles, thus serving as natural tables of content and indexes of Wikipedia."

Sure, WP:WTAF is not a policy. But it is the standard practice and long-standing consensus on Wikipedia. Basically, all stand-alone lists I have on my watchlist are constantly being cleaned up (i.e. removing red links, external links and items with no links) by editors, including the administrators. The common consensus on Wikipedia (shared by editors and administrators) is that stand-alone lists should not contain red links, external links or items with no links. If you don't believe me, you can ask on the help desk, they have the same answer: Stand-alone list such as this one should only consist of links to existing articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2016_March_9#External_links).

The reason is, of course, that Wikipedia relies on verifiability and notability. It cannot include everything that exists, Wikipedia is not a software catalog.—J. M. (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

RafiRaffee proposed deletion

You make a very convincing argument about deletion and I do understand and if this page gets deleted. However, I don't understand how there are other articles on Wikipedia that have much less notability and are just as short as mine that don't get any attention. If my article gets deleted, then fine, but to make justice you should look at other articles such as IDEA Quest, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jusipher (talk • contribs) 03:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

"Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia. Anyone can create one. I cannot check every article on Wikipedia. Nobody can. It is not humanly possible. Yes, there are obscure articles that probably should not exist— because nobody has noticed yet, nobody reads them. We can only fix what we spot. "Justice" is not really the goal of Wikipedia anyway.—J. M. (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Dominic Thiem

Why? Why did you delete all my edit (Early life section) ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moncherlsx (talk • contribs) 06:34, 12 June 2016

Because the whole section was lousy and useless. First, despite its name, it had nothing to do with his early life. The only thing related to his early life was his birth date and place, but it was redundant and wrong. The birth date was already mentioned in the intro and also in the infobox, and you could not even copy the birth place from the infobox correctly (he was not born in Lichtenworth). Being a Chelsea fan is not something that would belong in the Early life section, and the thing about Ivan Lendl was unsourced, and, as far as I know, nonsense, too. The fact that Lendl met him five or six years ago and was impressed with him (and arranged the Adidas contract for him) does not mean that he "discovered" him. And again, it's not something that I would call "early life". The article already contains the "Juniors" section and I think that is sufficient. In the future, please try to be much more careful with your edits so that they meet the standards required by Wikipedia (and please sign your posts).—J. M. (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

MP3

Why do you believe MP3 player does not belong on the Croatian inventions category? Please present a solid reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.52.69 (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

First, you have been blocked indefinitely. You have no business editing Wikipedia anymore, and all your edits should be reverted by default. By using millions of sock puppets and anonymous IP addresses to circumvent the block, you violate the Wikipedia rules. Second, the article is about hardware MP3 players. As far as I know, the sources say Uzelac wrote a software engine. So, irrelevant for the article. Third, you do not understand the meaning of the word "invention". The mere act of making or writing something is not an invention. You do not invent software, you write it. Making an MP3 decoder is not an invention. Even if it was the first one (and Uzelac's engine was not even the first one, the first one was made in the early 90s by Frauenhofer, the inventor of MP3). You do not invent anything by implementing an existing standard (and making an MP3 decoder or a software MP3 player is nothing else than just writing software or making a circuit that works with an existing, already invented standard, it's just normal work, like plumbing). Just like writing my comment here is not an invention. Stop being fanatical about Croats and applying irrelevant "Croatian invention everywhere.—J. M. (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I said it was the first working, I am aware of the original German one. I misunderstood what is appropriate to be classified as an invention. I apologize for my misunderstanding. However, your accusations of sockpuppetry are false. I simply noticed mp3 missing from the inventions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.52.69 (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong. He didn't just write a software, he developed the first engine, a hardware, a tangible equipment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.76.29 (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Source? "Engine" is a technical term used for the elementary part of computer software. Besides, the article is not about MP3 engines, it is about hardware MP3 players. Uzelac is not the inventor of a hardware MP3 player, the subject of the article. And please stop using a different IP address for every edit, and most importantly, please stop editing Wikipedia and violating its rules.—J. M. (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to use a different IP. I am on my mobile network it shifts every time I switch over to a WiFi then back to mobile data. Once again it seems I wasn't 100% on the terminology. All I can say is thanks for the clear up but please don't accuse me of breaking rules. I don't edit enough to make an account — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.76.29 (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but the whole massive investigation ([6], [7]) clearly shows that you edit way much more than enough to make an account. But please, do not make yet another account. Just stop. Comments like this clearly show that you should leave Wikipedia immediately.—J. M. (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of ID3haert whant

Hello J. M.,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged ID3haert whant for deletion, because it seems to be vandalism or a hoax.

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. Melaen (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, that was just an error: I wanted to warn a user for this edit, clicked on the link they changed and created the page instead. I'm sorry for the trouble.—J. M. (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

List of free and open-source software packages

Hi J.M

It seems like you have reverted back of my edit on "List of free and open-source software packages" page. section: Other media packages I have added "Trelby" as one of the software, which too is screen writing software similar to Celtx. May i know what is wrong with that addition? Thanks Geecay (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. First, external links should not be used in the body of an article. Second, stand-alone lists such as List of free and open-source software packages should only include links to existing articles on Wikipedia, which means notable items. That is, no external links, no red links and no items without any links.—J. M. (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Kyrgios

It's not "news of the future", thank you, it's taken from the live-tennis.eu website, which is actually an official source for both the ATP World Tour Finals and the WTA Finals articles. So there are no "predictions", it's updated daily with ranking points changed based on each match won. And since this week's set of matches are all done, there's no possibility of it changing. GAThrawnIGF (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

They are news from the future. You cannot report the future as history on Wikipedia as you did in the article, it is strictly forbidden in the Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. On 23 October, you cannot write that something happened on 24 October. Firstly, it is verifiably false, as it has not happened yet and 24 October is the future, secondly, live-tennis.eu is not an official source for tennis rankings. You are completely mistaken here. live-tennis.eu is an unofficial anonymous fansite that has absolutely no relevance as a source (besides, their calculations and predictions quite often contained errors). The only official sources for ATP and WTA rankings are the ATP rankings and WTA rankings. You can only change the infoboxes after the official ranking update happens on Monday. Only official, real, existing rankings are allowed in the infoboxes. No predictions.—J. M. (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

picky

he is being reported as number one all over the world - I also added a reliable source to support it - get over it - let it be. People are coming from all over the world to report what reliable sources are reporting, stop being so anal Govindaharihari (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

No. We do not report "live", projected rankings as official rankings. It is forbidden on Wikipedia (you cannot report the future as history), and it is a long-standing consensus in WP:TENNIS. Andy is still verifiably No. 2. The only reliable source for the ATP ranking are the ATP rankings themselves. In the meantime you can mention he will become No. 1, but you cannot say he is No. 1. It is verifiably false, and forbidden by the Wikipedia policies.—J. M. (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

false, and forbidden - La la lol Govindaharihari (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, ATPWorldTour.com and WTATennis.com, in general, can be considered reliable sources, since the ranking pages are just parts of those sites. -- James26 (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but for the rankings themselves, the rankings themselves are the source.—J. M. (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Andy Murray 3RR

Hi, J.M. Just a friendly message.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

If I understand the three revert rule correctly, you may be in danger of violating it.

Personally, I know that you mean well, but I have to agree with others that it's not that big of a deal if people want to update his ranking here less than 48 hours from the time that he'll be number 1 (with proper details about it being forthcoming). I might agree with your stance if he was a week away from getting this ranking. A few of us did something similar a day before Cibulkova took the number 5 ranking last week. The Murray news is well known by now, and people will probably keep coming to edit the ranking. My advice is to let it be. -- James26 (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

First, as the 3RR explains, WP:BLP corrections are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR. Second, the point was not that peple were saying Andy would become No. 1 (the article already said that and there was no problem with that), but that he was No. 1, and that 7 November was history. That is unacceptable, it violates basic Wikipedia policies and it has to be reverted. Again, 3RR does not apply here.—J. M. (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, J. M.. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Red links

I understand your reasoning regarding the deletion of the red links. At the time, there was no page. However, in the meantime, I've created an article for the Enhanced Voice Services codec, which I believe fulfills the notability guidelines. I draw this conclusion from the fact that all previous codecs of the 3GPP series (such as AMR-WB) have corresponding articles and the existence of several independent technical whitepapers, official documentation, and strong industry support behind the technology. I am certain that the article can be improved and extended, but given the importance of the technology for the community behind it, this should be achievable. I hope this clarifies my actions – I hope that good faith is assumed in these edits. Not a regular Wikipedia editor here, just a user trying to improve the state of things. Slhck (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

EVS is something completely different from EVX-1/2/3/4. EVS appears to be an established standard made by a large, well-known group, there are solid sources for it etc. No problem with that. But the Cairo/Chennai/Chicago/Cannes codecs, that's just pure spam. A non-notable one-man project with no sources at all. The Cairo Codec article was already speedily deleted as spam. So feel free to re-add EVS.—J. M. (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay! I'm all for removing spammy articles without sources. Sorry for interfering with these other edits, and thank you for your understanding. Slhck (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

removing my edits

sorry for in the incorrect description as "minor edits" i did not deem them large enough to justify another title. the items removed were incorrect and since disproved articles. still unsure as to how to cite a source, however i can provide you with a link to said sources should you deem them needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.127.127 (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I suppose you are Nate.grim. When you basically change everything to say exactly the opposite of the original statements, that's definitely a major edit. And it definitely requires very convincing sources, too, especially for claims that are hard to believe. Furthermore, you did not remove sources that "were incorrect and since disproved articles". You simply changed the text saying that the cited studies said the opposite of what they said. That really does not look like constructive editing. Also, do not remove studies from the article just because there are newer ones. The older ones are part of the history, too (and new studies are very rarely "ultimate"; at best they can be a part of the discussion, and open to interpretation). Anyway, if you have reliable sources supporting your claims, feel free to add them to the article. But please do not falsify the existing material. Thanks.—J. M. (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Non-admin closure

Reopening a discussion just because I forgot to say which admin deleted it seems unnecessarily bureaucratic. There's no reason to reopen a discussion that's already been uncontroversially closed. WP:NAC says nothing about naming the admin in the edit summary. I did name the edit in my closing comments, which should be sufficient. To reopen the discussion is completely unnecessary, process for the sake of process. I've done hundreds of NAC's in my life, and not once have I been chided for failing to name the deleting admin. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: The reason why WP:NAC does not say anything about mentioning the admin is that WP:NAC explicitly says that non-admins cannot close deletions as "delete" or "speedy delete" at all. There is only one exception when non-admins are allowed to close deletions as "delete". And that is the exception in WP:NACD that I mentioned. And yes, you have to mention the admin in that special case.—J. M. (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I replied here - I think the closure was completely fine.  Frank  |  talk  21:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't. Please see my reply there.—J. M. (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You missed the part where it says it can be closed "where the page under discussion has been noncontroversially speedy deleted, yet the debate is not closed." My closure was within that parameter. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Removing Resonic from audio players

I can understand why the stub pages have been removed, they did not contain a lot of content yet. But can you explain why you removed a popular audio player from the audio player comparison page? I took the time to research its information and put in in there as accurately as possible, and you just kick it. Comparison of audio player software — Preceding unsigned comment added by Risingballs (talk • contribs) 13:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The list only includes players which have their own article. Futhermore, please do not abuse the word "popular" for something you have been obviously spamming Wikipedia with, and which was speedily deleted as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Impartial evaluation requires honest editors and convincing arguments.—J. M. (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Spamming? Are you completely nuts? This random removal of content is no better than censorship. I made one single edit, then added two pages because they appeared in red and didn't exist yet, so I was gonna add information to them. Advertising... you could call that every single thing being listed on Wikipedia.Risingballs (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't random, there is no censorship on Wikipedia, and no, we definitely do not call every single thing being listed here advertising. See my previous message (especially the first and last sentence). I don't have anything to add.—J. M. (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

4k, i see

OK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution#Recording

Are you a natively English speaker/reader? That grammar is very awkward "with the axiom" (category of devices) I clarified this by eliminating its very jarring wording. I reworded again for even much greater clarity. Now it is smooth as silk, you will see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinsearach (talk • contribs) 00:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Pliskova No.1

I understand there are no future rankings, but what you don't understand is that this is true that she has claimed the women's world number 1 ranking. If you don't believe me click here and look at the top of the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Comosport7 (talk • contribs)

@Comosport7:Sorry, but you don't understand. Of course I know she is projected to become the world No. 1. That has nothing to do with my message and the warning. The infobox cannot include future, projected rankings. The ranking can only be updated when the official update actually happens. That is, on Monday. She is not No. 1 yet. There is no 11 July ranking update on the WTA, as you suggested in your edit. The rankings are not updated daily. P.S. Please, try to use more accurate edit summaries than "Added more".—J. M. (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello J. M. I understand everything you say and I agree. But I want to ask you question. Do I need to put a edit summary. Is it required? Or do I have a choice if I want to do it or not. Because I don't now how to do a edit summary. If you have time can you tell me. Put the reply on my talk page. Comosport, 13 July 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 18:28 (UTC)

Tomislav Draganja

Dear J.M., there has been a malfunction on this page (Tomislav Draganja) if you can, can you fix it for me because I tried everything and it just made it worst. Maybe it might just be a minor malfunction in my device but I'm not sure. And if not I bet someone else maybe could fix it. But I'm just asking you a small favor, so again if you can fix it for me please do it. Reply on my talk page.— Comosport (talk), 3:40, 23 July 2017.

Thank you for checking the page J.M. because I don't want to be blocked from editing, so thank you.— Comosport (talk), 3:40, 23 July 2017.

User:103.231.160.185

This anonym again vandalizes Sport in Bangladesh article, that you just reverted. I don't have huggle to revert 5-10 edits at once.--Biografer (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Biografer: I don't have Huggle either. It's not really needed. You can revert anything by editing an older revision, or simply by clicking "undo" when you show multiple edits at once. You just have to fill in the edit summary. The rollback feature creates an automatic edit summary, but you can only use it for reverting obvious vandalism and a couple of other things.

Are you sure the latest 7 edits were vandalism? I can't see anything wrong with them.—J. M. (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. At first I thought it was another of those attacks, sorry.--Biografer (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

External link in Photo Slideshow Software

Hello, J.M. Sorry for all the inconvenience I've caused while editing "Photo slideshow software" article. I'd like to know why you removed the external link I had added? It was meant as no spam content, but a fairly neutral review of the slideshow makers that are currently in the market, including the list of their features, listed in the Wiki article. I've read the guidelines, but couldn't decide what exactly I violated. Thanks in advance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Terner78 (talk • contribs)

Hi. Anonymous blogs are not encyclopedic sources (that's why your link was removed by Mean as custard, too). Plus the sentence I removed was poorly written, vague, and did not really say anything.—J. M. (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: Spam

Hi J.M., I want to know to know why spam my link (http://www.digitalberge.com/blog/10-reasons-why-your-content-marketing-strategy-must-include-video/) on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_advertising . This article is informative and related to video marketing. I want a relevant reason now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YuvanshSharma (talk • contribs) 12:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Because: 1. The source itself is spammy, 2. The intention, the reason why the link was included was spammy as well. Please see WP:RS and WP:EL to see what informative and related sources really are. Thanks.—J. M. (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Tennis rankings

---

"Re: There are no live rankings in tennis".

Well, my SOURCE begs to differ: "http://live-tennis.eu/en/atp-live-ranking"

THEY SHOW THE RANKINGS ON A LIVE UPDATE BASIS AND I DON'T FEEL THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH EDITING SAID ARTICLES WITH UPDATED INFORMATION WHEN THEY WILL BE RECTIFIED IN A DAY OR SO ANYWAY.

So take your own advice and "stop". I will not cease doing this and if I have to I will make the pages PROTECTED to stop jackasses like you undoing any information I've added to save people time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.204.0 (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

For the last time: There are no live rankings in tennis. Your "source" is an anonymous fansite that has absolutely no relevance, it is only an unofficial calculation purely for fans' interest. It has no official status whatsoever (and their calculations are often wrong). Tennis rankings are made by the ATP, not by anonymous fansites that have nothing to do with the ATP. The official ATP rankings are only updated on Monday. There are no other updates than the official ATP updates. The ATP rankings are the only source for tennis rankings. If you do not stop your premature ranking updates, you will be blocked again and the block will be longer this time.—J. M. (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

---

It seems like you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about re: livetennis.eu. Their calculations are correct as the mathematical formula used to create them is based around the same metrics the ATP use themselves. You'll also find that every single page I updated followed the formula used by the ATP and shown by the "fansite" you so eloquently put down for your own benefit.

Are you a moderator on Wikipedia? Nothing else to validate your argument? Well, I will get your account suspended if you continue to interfere with me editing future articles with "future" rankings that are absolutely correct.

And if everything must come from the ATP, articles sourcing players as the "greatest ever" that bare no relevance to the ATP should be shunned too; but you won't do that and will instead try and skit-scurry your way around that with some diatribe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.204.0 (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I know very well what I am talking about. First, this is not a matter of opinion, this is a fact. There are no live rankings in tennis, the ATP tennis rankings are made and updated weekly by the ATP, not by live-tennis.eu or any other anonymous source. This is an objective, verifiable fact. Actually, live-tennis.eu does not claim anywhere that they are the official source for tennis rankings. That's just your misconception. It is a live calculation just as a matter of interest for tennis fans that does not affect the official rankings in any way (the mathematical methods they use do not matter at all, whether they are correct or not, this is completely irrelevant). It would make no sense anyway, because tennis rankings can only be updated on Monday after the tourament finals. They cannot be updated on Wednesday, Thursday or any other day except Monday.

Second, the Wikipedia rules are absolutely clear about this. Wikipedia tennis guidelines clearly say that tennis player infoboxes can only include official ATP rankings:

"Update world rankings beginning from Mondays, and only when the new weekly ATP and WTA rankings are published (do not pre-calculate them)."

Stop violating it. Furthermore, live-tennis.eu is an anonymous fansite and anonymous fansites cannot be used as sources for anything on Wikipedia. This is described in the reliable sources and verifiability policies which are the fundamental Wikipedia policies. Stop violating them.

You will definitely not get my account suspended. I am right, you are wrong. Objectively, undeniably. In fact, everyone, including the administrators, has already told you that you are wrong and have to stop. You were already blocked from editing for ignoring it. So just respect it or you will be blocked from editing again. And the block will be longer.

And one more thing: personal attacks are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. The Civility policy is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. It is not optional, it is strictly required. Your constant personal attacks are enough to get you blocked from editing. You do not achieve anything by being constantly wrong, dismissing all warnings from everyone (including the admins) while being foul-mouthed and aggressive. So just stop. Update the rankings on Monday when the only real ATP rankings are actually updated and everything will be fine.—J. M. (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)