User talk:Ohnoitsjamie/archive14

Cascading page protection

Could you make some edits to {{User WikiProject Spam}}? I tagged the talk page with {{editprotected}}; but when I dug into it further, I realized that the userbox isn't protected directly - it's being indirectly protected because it's used on your user page which was protected with cascading page protection. I was waiting for someone to respond to the editprotected request - but thought I would ask you as well, since you're the protecting admin. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I made some adjustments to my usepage protection that hopefully fixed the cascade problem. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That resolved it, so I was able to make the changes myself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Isnt that source an independent, editorial-based and not advertising? Im confused.

Adam Tritt

Hi again Jamie! Would I be able to get a copy of this deleted article? --otherlleft (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, see User:Otherlleft/Adam_Tritt. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Halloween

Would you extend protection a bit longer? Vandalism got pretty heavy as soon as it expired. Thanks!--otherlleft (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Your talk page is overweight

Treat it like linkspam and be merciless. :P --GraemeL ^(talk) 01:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I really should shorten my archiving intervals. One of these days I'll set up on autoarchive. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting...

...I got an email too. I've got the page watchlisted and am keeping an eye.  Frank  |  talk  21:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked by another admin.  Frank  |  talk  21:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I got one too. He's being CU'd at the moment. John Reaves 21:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Here was me thinking I was in an exclusive club. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, welcome our new meta overlords. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I got one, but looks like it was sent before email was disabled. Honestly. What a load of shit....! _Gb^T/c 21:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Whitelist

Hey Jamie! I tried, and sorta succeeded, to get a page onto the whitelist here, but the complexities of the code thwarted the admin who agreed to it. He suggested turning to the technical village pump, but no one ever responded. Would you be willing to give it a go?--otherlleft (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In your business I suspect you missed this request earlier - you're generally excellent at replies. Is the above something you feel you can assist with?--otherlleft (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I must have missed this earlier. I made tweak attempt at the whitelist, but I haven't had a chance to test it yet. I notice the whitelist code for other suite101 sites is a bit more complicated because they're using Cold Fusion on the site, which in their case, hides the file name being server. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. Who would have thought it could be so complicated??--otherlleft (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Park Güell "not much info"?

Why do you say that there's not much information?. If you find a website of this park with more information about the park, said it to me, and I'll put it the wikipedias as external links, but because it's is form Barcelona's Council, there is not any official page, or any page dedicated only to this park.

And it's useful, because every day, at least twenty people visited it (from wikipedia), and they not only visit, they see an average of twelve pages per visit.

So I think that you didn't know the situation about this important tourist point of Barcelona, it's not as Sagrada familia, another work of Gaudí, witch has a official website.

I can't say you that you must put it (you are an admin, and I'm an user), but I can explain the situation of this website. And I make this because is my fault, and this website is here because I put it in many wikiepdias, because I didn't know that all this would happen.--RobCatalà (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to promote your Google-ad laden website. Period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It's also split up into small bundles of information on each page to maximize ad hits. The content is no where near good enough to justify linking to it anyway. --GraemeL ^(talk) 02:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok don't add to wikiepdia this webiste if you don't consider it's important, but don't say that I only want to ear money because you don't know the situation.

I'm a student (catalan) that as a secondary school project (two years, like the degree one, but for secondary school) I make this website, and I don't separate the information to earn more money, I make it because it's more useful for the visitor, I recognize that there could be more information, but sorry I'm not a professional as you think you are, and I made what I can.

I thought wikipedians were another type of people, I like too much the purpose of wikipedia, but now I've seen that the administrators of the English wikiepdias are as what you've demonstrated.

Is possible that I'll edit in the Spanish wikiedpia, but, not here, please, because your and administrators, could you erase this user RobCatalà , and now I think that I've waste lot of time doing Interwikis, wits this user, and all this work for nothing. It's very good to have bots antispam, but if a website is not spam, you should reconsidered, but well, English users are (I won't continue to avoid wasting time. If your are a legal person don't erase this post, It's not spam, or vandalism, but it's important because other people can read it.

If you think that my reaction is not logical, please read this, if now you go to a page, and make spam, without knowing it, I only put the links in others wikiepdias, because I know that English is the most spoken language in the world, and in all countries there are people who speak it, and a bot undo all, (logical, because is spam) you should think -oh, I should solve this- so I did, I went to the bot page, I talked with the person who controls it, and he agreed me that It was my fault. So I said sorry to everybody, and that I won't make spam again. For the moment a normal thing. But I don't understand that in three seconds a page or a user could be block, but to unblock, you can spend days... So the person who controls the bot said that I should wait an administrator, and wow, this two persons thing that because they don't want, oh, the link can't be in this page. So, good administrators, I don't want to think when you'll have to take important's decisions.

If you don't understand something sorry but this isn't my language. And remember Ohnoitsjamie or GraemeL delete my user please, and bye for ever. --exRobCatalà (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Any Wikipedian has the right to WP:VANISH, but we don't generally delete information unless there is a privacy concern. If you do want your userpage deleted, I will also remove this from my talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes one administrator, you, and now, Guy too(influenced by you) but there is another administrator, Stifle, who don't think as you. So if I ask for another opinion don't make someone say what you think (this is normally say Freedom of speech). So please can I ask to Guy to look it as an impartial administrator. And you can look the Spanish wiki, there is another person who think that it's a good website. Thank's--RobCatalà (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've found the perfect article (and it's official), take a look to Neutral point of view, I thought that as an administrator, you should know it, but...--RobCatalà (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of it, having been around here for several years. That policy has nothing to do with my opinion that your site is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Also see our WP:COI policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank's for the article, I've read it, you can think that I'm not respecting this rule, but, I can too think that I'm respecting it, so now comes when I say what I think:

I've read it and I can only compare my situation with:

Self-promotion

Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates.
Examples of these types of material include:

1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).
2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages.
3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.

But I don't promote any product, because I don't earn money for anything (Google adsense it's not a product, and I won't be never rich by this program, and neither for only an advertisement), so the first one, no. It's not my personal site, it's a site about a park, so the second no. And the third, it's not a material to complement the article (it was written before the website). The only reason to put the link is to give to the reader the possibility to complement the information with another format of information, the website has parts which are much more visual than wikipedia (wikipedia is a encyclopedia, and the website is for the tourist).

Give me your reason why you think that it's not respecting this rule. Thank's for all.--RobCatalà (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing else to say here. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your own advertising-laden site. Period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This link is not a "advertising-laden site", if this would be, all internet, incuding google webpage would be advertising-laden site (there are more advertisment links in them than in parkguell's one). So don't close a talk, as a dictatorian person, THIS IS CLOSED, please explain the reason of your opinion, If I made an error (not vandalism, only put links in other wikipeidas) give me the oportunity to solve it, not close talks, or influence other persons. Thanks for your time. (that's the job of administrators)--RobCatalà (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And about the other administrators, yes I asked for more opinions, I didn't look that rule before, so I've said to the others not to answer. (more in Waggers user page. Thank's for all--RobCatalà (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

sorry for vandalizing

I don't know if you remember or even still care about this but about a month ago I was trying to edit the article "Dracula". I didn't know what I was doing because I had just started a few minutes before I edited that article. I messed up and I didn't realize that someone had removed my edits so I kept on putting them back. You gave me a last warning for vandalizing. I realized what I did wrong and now I know what I'm doing. So I just wanted to say sorry. I didn't mean to vandalize it was an accident. well sorry.--VampireKen (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I Delete my vandalism warning templates?

Hey Jamie, I told you above where I got them from. Now is it ok if I erase them? or get rid of them? I wanted to ask first. I don't know if I can or not without permission from the person who gave them to me. Thanks!--VampireKen (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'm convinced that you're planning on using your account constructively from here on out, so I have no problems with you deleting the warnings. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And me! I apologise! was going to delete it anyway

ERM

Hi, could you please have a look here? Electronic medical record An editor has deleted every instance the term "electronic medical record" in this article and replaced it with another, obscure term that means something different and that may be a company's product name. Ta. Careful Cowboy (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Careful Cowboy (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Mark Prindle

Hey... saw your edits re: markprindle-dot-com. Yes, tough call, as there could be some value (and he does have a reasonable history). The massive spamming, as well as the fact his status as a "reliable source" was questioned at a FA review, made me lean towards removal. There are still about a hundred or so links left; I've been working away at removing the ones that are just straight review links, but leaving the ones that are incorporated as references within the body of an article. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As a big fan of indie music and a strict advocate against spam, I think that's a pretty good compromise. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Copyrighted" images

The images I created, are not photographs. They were created using skill, concentration and time, layer by layer on a vector image creator called Inkscape. Because they are of high quality doesn't mean they are copyright violations and are simply done on photoshop. I would appreciate if you undo the deletion requests. Just because you don't see well created vector images everyday, doesn't mean when you see one it is a fake.--LBelle (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you. It's obvious to me that you took professional porn shots and ran them through a "oil painting" filter in Photoshop or Paint.Net. I will not remove the deletion requests. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, look like pretty clear derivative works to me. Not compatible with free licenses. Cool Hand Luke 23:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Christmas Tree Page Deletion

Hi Ohnoitsjamie. The inclusion of The National Christmas Tree Association (NCTA) requires that non members of this PAID group must also be included. NCTA farms must PAY $200+ to be a member and get their tree farm listed. The Christmas Tree Farm Network (CTFN) is for those tree farms that believe that finding a Christmas tree is important public information without paying those very high membership fees. There are over 600 Real Christmas Tree Farms listed on the CTFN (you deleted) in nearly all 50 states and fewer farmers are on the NCTA web site. I have no problem with both sites being removed or both should be listed. It has nothing to do with SEO pagerank but fairness to the smaller Christmas tree farms.Aanrwebmaster (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to remove links. Wikipedia has way too many. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of link and content

Regarding the "Mortgage" page.

The word mortgage has a Latin background pointing to its true biblical origins even before AD. While I disagree of the assessment of the source of the link why remove the content as well?

Also the whole mortgage page is very rough conceptually with its subheadings but I am now too afraid to touch it... just in case my motives are misinterpreted. I think I will give wikipedia project a pass as it doesn't seem to honor facts. I would appreciate some advice for a new discouraged user. Its late here goodnight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3dProwler (talk • contribs) 17:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

My advice is to not use Wikipedia to promote your own website. Please feel free to contribute content if you can find a reliable source for it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

F Gulen

The version was the one worked for long. Adronorsic is blanking the article. His changes should be considered as major changes and should be discussed. This version is discussed thoroughly in archives he archived for purpose. Please see the archives and my comments here [1]. Mastercasper (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. You are getting close to 3RR, and will be blocked if you violate it. A check user request may also be in order. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do not check the archives then? Mastercasper (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Your next reversion will result in a block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

As far as I can see, Ebeing (talk · contribs) is the main account and Wikibeing (talk · contribs) the permanently blocked sockpuppet. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, I noticed that after the first decline. I revised my decline reason. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

I replaced your decline to User:Rockyobody with one that is both informative and civil. There was no reason for that. The guy is obviously having some kind of issue and there's no reason why we can't actually help him figure it out in a way that is not condescending. Trusilver 23:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

How do I formally complain about this editor?

I created a new page for split loan which did not exist in wikipedia and for a bit of pride and honor I referenced my page. There is no google Page Rank benefit and all I wanted is some recognition. This editor robbed me of my honor and removed the source link of the definition written in wikipedia. This is dishonest and legalistic as this editor does not look at the content and quality of contribution but is arrogant in his position of having done more edits on here. My definition is still there but I am not given any honor? Is this fair? Wikipedia will not last the test of time with such editors as quality contributions are not encouraged. I am strongly discouraged by wikipedia after this experience and would like to know how do I get a say and complain against this editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3dProwler (talk • contribs) 12:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have an "honor" system that you describe. As you've already been told, Wikipedia is not the place to promote your website. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Link

I'm (another time) here for the website about Park Güell. After our talk about the website, I added more information. And I didn't say anything to you because the problems were the ads of Google. But this weekend I thought that I won't never get rich by this website, so I thought, what’s better, to earn nothing (money), or to share the website that I made for the "Treball de recerca" (a work of two years for the school). So I decided to erase the Google ads.

So if you want, you can visit the website, and if you thing that it's useful for the Wikipedia, ask to someone that has participated to make the Park Güell article, if he thing that is useful. Then if you thing that it's not good enough to be in Wikipedia say it to me, I won't ask you anymore (exempt you say, please if you add more information about...). If you don't understand anything think that this is not my language.

(website: http://parkguell. net84.net/ )

Thanks--RobCatalà (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not interested in adding it. It's self-published, and thus does not meet WP:Reliable sources guidlines, not to mention the conflict of interest that has already been mentioned. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Whow, really fast, ok so I can see that yo havent look the website, but... (worse to wikipeida, to have these type of administrators) Bye--RobCatalà (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Bye. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Links

stop erasing my links on the c-walk article. They have been there for over two years (close to three years now). They follow all wiki link guidelines. Please contact me explaining why you think they should be removed. DanceOrigin is a well respected and established dance studio in both the UK and US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.152.109 (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Links don't get tenure. Add them again and you'll be blocked, and the links will be blacklisted. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If you do not honor the link please delete the page all together

Since you deleted the source link please delete PAYG Lo-Doc page all together. Since no honor is given for my work please delete the page with the definition all together which have been taken from my page. You can not have it both ways.

I finally decided to withdraw from the use of wikipedia after this bully experience and do not wish to create more work for your wikipedia. When work content is not honored there is no future with bullies that name themselves after their pet hate not considering the content by dishonoring the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3dProwler (talk • contribs) 01:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has hundreds (if not thousands) of editors who contribute without any expectations of reward. Good luck in your endeavors. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Your deletion of the talk page for that Lo-Doc article

The edit summary for your deletion says "G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page" but the page still exists. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Cydonia Mensae

Hi Ohnoitsjamie. Sorry, but I didn't spot your edit to those new pictures at Cydonia Mensae, so it looks like I've just ridden roughshod over you. Sorry about that. Anyway, thanks for correctly re-captioning them - pyramids my arse!  ;-) Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 16:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries; you did make a valid point that the images are lacking a source. Since they will probably be deleted anyway, I went ahead and removed them. If a source is provided, we could revisit whether or not they add anything to the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought the final "pyramid" one was just about worth retaining since it beautifully illustrates just how far it is from being a pyramid (not the intention of the editor who added it, I'm sure), but you're right - they'll probably wind up being deleted (one's actually a duplicate of an existing image amongst other things). Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 16:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Your deletion of added text in Egyptian Pyramids article

The edit summary for your revertion says nothing, what is the reason for deletion? Personal feelings or some reasonable wikipedia rule?

" 20:20, 27 November 2008 Ohnoitsjamie (Talk | contribs) m (24,039 bytes) (Reverted edits by Lyckey (talk) to last version by Ohnoitsjamie) (undo) " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyckey (talk • contribs)

Travel

Ohnoitsjamie, if you want to revert, please give reasons beyond 'does not belong in article'. Are you basing your reversion on any established set of ideas about travel? Do you have any familiarity with the literature in this field? 86.139.108.172 (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm merely supporting the stance of numerous other editors who disagree with the passages inclusion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

So neither you nor they are familiar with the literature on the subject, then? 86.139.108.172 (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Georgelives at WP:ANI

There is a question about your editing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#George_Carlin. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Gadgets

Hi Jamie. I've done some edits over the years, but this is my first time writing so much content. I'm not trying to promote anything here. Please tell me what you would do to this to make it compliant. Please also explain how a reference to a product as with the iPhone, with it's large photo, on this very same article is allowed and not promotion. Also explain why using a published book on the exactly the subject of this article, gadgets, is not allowed. Further, thousands of Wikipedia articles cite commercial products and books now. How is this different? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafgreen (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

When you're spamming info about your own book to multiple articles, I'd say that's a conflict of interest. Please don't do it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to keep Wikipedia spam free, but...What?!? You are wrong. I am not Steve Greenberg, I did not write Gadget Nation, and I do not work for the book nor the publisher nor anything related. "Multiple articles"? That's inaccurate too. I see one other article containing Gadget Nation. See [2]. Please retract your false, baseless accusations. Also answer the four other questions you ignored, since they are relevant. You see, I am also trying to learn to prevent additional editor time, and am asking once again for a little help in that regard.

I don't have any proof you're the author; it was a guess based on your username. I'll take your word for it that you're not the author. In any case, the Gadget article is a frequent spam target, and Wikipedia is not the place to promote a book. Your addition sounded like an advertisement for the book, and I note that the editor (Stevetv (talk · contribs · logs) who added the link to Flash of Genius (film) appears to be a single purpose account. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh I get it: the "green" in "Leafgreen" proves that I am the same as Steve Greenberg. That assumption is a blantantly irresponsible leap to a false conclusion! You broke the assume good faith rule. You shot first and then waited for the wounded man to ask questions. According to your method of reason, you are a murderer since you share the same name as Jessie James.

Further, Your lack of use of any evidence other than some fallacious assumption has no place here. Such is no different than the thing you are given to police. Further, you should have also looked up my contribution history and seen that I have only made minor edits, but no subtantial content, and you bit me.

For the third time, I'm asking you to address the "central points" [3] of our disagreement. Why do you continually avoid them? (Refer to my four questions.) Here's the fifth question: The content I wrote cites an external, respected source of information about gadgets. In direct rebuttal to your statement, "Your addition sounded like an advertisement for the book," how is it any more than citation of an external source? How is it different than citing a book written by Donald Trump's Art of a Deal in a real estate article? Nothing, and my contribution was compliant with reliable sources. Please reinstate the content I wrote. Otherwise, I shall begin dispute resolution. And, you don't have a very strong case.

Normally I wouldn't have spent the three hours of my Sunday on this, but justice must be served.

I apologize for erroneously assuming you were the author. However, I'm not going to spend much time defending the deletion of promotional material. If simply added the book with ISBN to a "Selected Reading" section, I probably wouldn't have thought anything of it. The content you added sounds like an advert for the book, with 3 links to the author's site (one in the reference, and two in the External links section, including one to his "gadget store"). Trump has significantly more notability than Greenberg, so it's pointless making a comparison (though if someone posted a passage sourced by Trump and included a link to a Trump "storefront," I'd object to that as well). Regarding the content itself, I don't think everyone would agree that America is unique in it's thirst for gadgets (i.e. Japan). A more appropriate approach would be something to the effect of "Author Steven Greenberg argues that gadgets are primarily an American phenomenon..." and then use the standard {{cite book}} tag. Phrases like "Archetypal garage inventors from across America enjoy the struggle to come up with the next must-have gadget, and in doing so reach for the American dream" do not have the appropriate tone for an encyclopedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate your long awaited, belated suggestions for a revision. I'll work on it soon. I'd like to write it first and then get an editor's feedback. How should I do that, or should I just post it and then see what happens? The latter doesn't seem correct, in light of the ridiculously inefficient contribution editing process in which you and I have been involved.

Easiest thing to do is to post your proposed addition on Talk:Gadget first. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Who's Who

Hi. I saw that you'd removed a source link for the birthdate of Drew Barrymore here. I'm not sure how that webpage qualifies as spam. It's a brief biography of Barrymore and doesn't appear to be selling anything. In the past, Who's Who in America? was a well-known entity. Could you fill me in on why the page is spam? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's spam when a single user canvasses the link on many pages. Birth dates for most of those subjects are easily verified at other well-established WP:Reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that answers my question. I apparently don't have the other articles on my watchlist and didn't check into the user history. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Humboldt State University Notable People

Hi Ohnoitsjamie,

You recently edited the Humboldt State University article section on notable people, removing individuals who did not have associated articles. May I ask what the criteria you used in determining their notability were?

Thanks.

-Clueless (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Without an article, the subjects were lacking an appropriate reliable source attesting to their notability. See WP:BIO for more info on what constitutes notability in Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Did you look at the articles? Many of them have no references beyond personal webpages; some have no references at all. Other Wikipedia articles do not qualify as reliable sources, as far as I know, so either all the unreferenced individuals should be removed (which would be a shame) or they should all be given time for referencing (preferable, IMHO, as long as someone is willing/able to find references).

I'd like to revert your edit in fairness to the people without articles. Simultaneously, I'll add a note to the article's talk page requesting references for the individuals in question -- both the ones with articles and the ones without. How does that sound to you?

-Clueless (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you not do a complete revert. Some of those individuals may meet notability guidelines, though I doubt most of them do (especially the deleted entries from the faculty section; see WP:PROF for more info on academic notability). If you can find third-party reliable sources indicating notability, then feel free to re-add such subjects. An easy way to find reliable sources is via a Google news search (or similar search with your favorite search engine). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Let me look over those guidelines and see how to best proceed from there :) -Clueless (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

novusvinum.com promo account?

On Pumpkinapple's talk page you said how you're "on the fence about your contributions". A few things:

• all her own (so far very few contributions) are inserting links to novusvinum.com
• she says on her own user page that her fiance is California11
• ALL of his contributions are inserting links to novusvinum.com or gayot.com
• novusvinum.com is a sub brand of gayot.com, i.e. they are the same business

Make of it whatever you want... ADude (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Tara J

Why did you delete my page on Tara J? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffman99 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The answer is one your talk page. The subject does not meet Wikipedia notability standards. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry but

you recently said i was breakin copy right laws with my information on mediaeverwhere but i work for them and was asked by them to add there details to here please may i now add basic details of this high classed company that by far deserves to be added to this encyclopedia as much as any highly regarded comapny like google and many others —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draillits (talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No. None of the content you attempted to add comes close to meeting notability requirements (WP:CORP and WP:BIO). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:COI.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Lokah

There are multiple external ref for Lokah. In addition the band features Sting, Russell Simmons, and Sky Cries Mary on their album, also they are the first band to fuse ancient indian kirtan and pop in a large scale prodcution. Why the deletion?

See WP:MUSIC. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't edited the article you said i vandalised

Hello, not sure if you made a mistake or not but the page you said i "vandalised", I did not even visit, must be some mistake. It was apperently about a "LeBron James", never heard of him, never visited the page....i wouldn't even know how to edit a page if i wanted to....don't even know if i'm posting this in the right place...pleae explain Sniper Zed (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never left any messages on your talk page. Perhaps you weren't logged in when you saw the message? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to have Atlantic Cat undeleted

I believe Atlantic Cat was deleted in error. I began this article, and you deleted it before I could get very far with it. There are several other articles for Caterpillar Dealerships, such as Finning and WesTrac. Brycecronkleton (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Dealerships rarely meet WP:CORP notability requirements. Take it to WP:DRV if you wish to dispute it further. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are related examples: WesTrac, Finning, Ring Power, Peter Holt. If those are OK, why can't other business articles be created? Brycecronkleton (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't have a double standard for some company articles. Caterpillar dealerships are frequently billion-dollar a year businesses, and that alone should be enough to pass the notable hurdle. Brycecronkleton (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We do have notability standards. The examples you site exist because they are large companies by WP:CORP standards and have reliable sources to support their notability. You're welcome to nominate them for deletion if you'd like. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have notability double standards Brycecronkleton (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have not read our notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to have Marie Diamond undeleted

Jamie: I found that the "Marie Diamond" page I added today has been "speedy deleted". I would appreciate knowing how Marie meets your criteria for "non-notability"...it seems there are other folks with bios in Wikipedia who have contributed less to society at large.

My intention was to add further citations of books and movies Marie has contributed to, but you have made this a little tough by deleting the article...I will have to start from scratch, and face greater critical scrutiny if I simply attempt to re-post a deleted article. I would prefer that you consider undeleting the page instead, so I can add to it.

Thanks for your time...from Geraldblank (talk)

See WP:BIO for out policies on notability. The article you created had no non-trivial, third-party reliable sources to indicate how the subject meets our notability criteria. If you can show me a few such references, I'd considered restoring the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Jim Norton Reference Deleted

Why doesn't the reference directly support it? Jim Norton is a comic with some notority, who has a maintained Wikipedia page, that lists George Carlin as one of his influences on that page. It seems to be that if the Jim Norton page says that he was influenced by Carlin, and if Carlin's page lists comics that he influenced, and none of the above are indispute, then the reference is supported? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SJrX10 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I now understand what you were doing. I restored your edits. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Acai Berry information deleted

Jamie, I am curious as to why my information on micromoles in the Acai Fruit has been deleted. The information on the website that was referenced did site the original source which has yet to be found online. Please let me know what I can do so that I can continiue to be a contributing person to Wikipedia. Thank you, Kris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itskris84 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an advertising venue. Your site, which has been repeatedly spammed here, was removed per WP:EL policies and will be blacklisted if it is added again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

1. "My site" is not "my site". 2. Why is citing a source an "advertising venue"? 2. I've never added that site before, or any sites for that matter. I am really confused as to why it was deleted. How does Wikipedia expect people to contribute if when they do they get their contribution removed?

Please give me a less generic answer for taking down the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itskris84 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've already told you that Wikipedia is not an advertising venue. The link clearly does not meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines. We have lots of people here who are more interested in contributing content versus links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Jamie, I am not here to add links for advertisement. Again that site I cited wasn't mine. Will you allow me to post the information without citing the source? I have no problem not adding the source. I just thought that if I found information online that I felt could contribute to a topic then I should cite where I got the information from. Please let me know so I can add the content back into the topic. Again... I have no need to cite the source I just thought thats what needed to happen on Wikipedia. Kris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itskris84 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable from a reliable source. If you can find a .edu or .gov link (or any other non-commercial link) with the info, that's fine. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Rahm Emmanuel information removed

Jamie, I do not think Mr. Emanuel's potential role is a matter of dispute; he is named in the original, un-redacted draft of the affidavit. If you have not read the unsealed affidavit, you may find a link to it here: http://llnw.static.cbslocal.com/station/national/docs/2008/12/complaintcoverandaff.pdf After you have done so, you will find that all of the information contained in my post comes from either the affidavit itself or from information found elsewhere on Wikipedia (e.g., w.r.t. Senate Candidate 1). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.222.230 (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The text is still not appropriate. First of all, per undue weight policy, you're trying to add a large body of text that is mostly about the Blagojevich. The fact that you're calling it "potential involvement" suggests WP:OR. At most, it might be appropriate to mention that Emmanual was referenced in the complaint, but even that should be proposed on the talk page. If Emmanual is formally charged, then it would be appropriate to have a section devoted to the matter. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree the information is "mostly" about Blagojevich. The 76-page affidavit is "mostly" about Blagojevich whereas the brief information I posted from the affidavit is either recorded conversations SPECIFIC to Emanuel or contextual information specific to the references to Emanuel. I will go along with your interpretation that "potential involvement" (while correct) may cause people to draw an incorrect inference, so I would propose changing the heading of the section (not deleting the section itself). How about "Blagojevich/Harris affidavit references to Emanuel"? (I disagree that "potential involvement" implies OR...the OR was done by the F.B.I., not me, and is publicly available information.) I also disagree that Emanuel must be charged to make this worthy of inclusion on his page. The affidavit makes clear that Emanuel communicated via emissaries with the Blagojevich camp. Obama said earlier this morning that he will make public the dates/times and content of those conversations "within the next few days". Based on Blagojevich's "unmentionable" (Obama's words) comments about Obama and his administration (as found in the affidavit) it would seems that Mr. Emanuel DID NOT entertain Blagojevich's pay-to-play proposals (and since that is speculation it wasn't contained or alluded to in my post). Therefore, what *IS* noteworthy about Emanuel's role in these conversations appears to be that he WAS aware of the pay-to-play intentions of Blagojevich, but (apparently?) didn't inform President-elect Obama or law enforcement that Blagojevich's people were engaging in an illegal scheme to strong-arm both Emanuel and the Obama administration. Regardless of whether Emanuel is charged (almost certainly he WON'T be), this is significant.

I'm not saying that we can't include anything about it until he's charged; I just think the section was much too large this early in the proceedings. Furthermore, WP:BLP policy is one of the most strictly enforced (and contested) policies here; given that, I think the best course of action is to propose the content you'd like to add to the talk page first to get some more input as to the wording. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree to disagree with you whether the length of the section is commensurate with the stage of the proceedings and also agree to move the content to the talk page.

The most important thing is that when potentially controversial material is added to bios of living people, we have to be especially careful. I appreciate your cooperation, and I'm sure others will chime in with suggestions on how to best incorporate the material. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm sure a collaborative discussion on what/how to post from the affidavit, even if heated, will only make it a better section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.222.230 (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Insanity

Worth taking a look at the current debate about this on the talk page. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 18:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I took a look at it. It's certainly not needed (regardless of who said it). It belongs in Wikiquote if anywhere. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've now added the link to Wikiquote, but I'm wondering that since we're both involved in the content discussion whether a WP:WQA might be advisable; this editor's behaviour isn't a new phenomenon, hit attitude goes way back to February. --Rodhullandemu 19:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but the content dispute and incivility are two separate matters. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Goldman Sachs

I noticed you went ahead and removed the edit to the article without checking out the talk page. I proposed the change days ago and no one opposed. wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a complaint forum. Most of what I removed had no bearing/effect on the company, and is not newsworthy relative to the other "happenings" of the company. The one point which was known to have been serious criticism was moved to the firm's history. The rest is not worthy of being in the article. Please consider reverting your reversion :) 139.147.81.231 (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I read through the material again and agree with you that some if it is not that relevant. Let me know what you think of the current version. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it again. I'd like to just get rid of the section title and integrate the criticism which you left into the firm's history. I feel like leaving the "criticism" title up just invites people to add grievances, no matter how irrelevant they may be to the article 139.147.81.231 (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Limp Bizkit

You erased all the news about the band.why? and could you talk it on discussion page before erasing or at least explane the reason in Edit Summery please? Cause it's very confusing when you go visit a page and one part is erased and you dont even know the reason!Solino the Wolf (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It was a complete mess, basically cut-and-paste from chat logs. If you want to incorporate band news, do so within Wikipedia guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree.I myself had told this once in its talk page asking till when this weekly updates should be brought to the article.but I think explaning in talk page before doing a big change in the article,or at least mentioning the reason is apropriate.Anyways,I agree,It's better this way.Solino the Wolf (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You can still use the diffs from the old version if there is anything salvageable or important that can be re-included. Normally I would go to the talk page first before making a big change, but in this case, it was such a mess that I decided to be bold. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Tnx anyways.Cheers.:-) Solino the Wolf (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Beauty

Please see my comments in the Object and Subject section of the discussion before reverting. The point is valid and grammatically correct. I changed the phrase "object of beauty" to "subject of beauty" in the introduction because the paragraph in question regards subjective experiences and interpretations of beauty. The philosophy term "subject" is more appropriate here, as it deals with a thing inside of the mind. In order for the term "object" to be more appropriate, the paragraph would need to define the thing as beautiful outside of the person's mind, which the paragraph clearly does not do. Please do not change this without proper argumentation.

Please do not edit war. I proposed this change well over a week ago, and no one opposed this or responded to it. BennyQuixote (talk)

I disagree with your reasoning. Something that is described as "beautiful" is still an object. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Carry Nation

You keep changing the date of her second marriage to December 27, 1877 when it is in fact December 27, 1874. My reference is "Carry Nation" by Fran Grace, page 55: "Carry Gloyd and David Nation had known each other for several years before they married in December 1874."

MSN Encarta says the date is 1877. If you can find other sources that support an 1874 date, post them to the talk page for review. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"In 1874 Carrie Gloyd married David Nation, a widower with children who was nineteen years older than she. " http://shs.umsystem.edu/famousmissourians/leaders/nation/nation.shtml68.173.183.192 (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm....tough call. Might be worth mentioning in the article that some sources say 1874 and some say 1877, as Encarta and the UM site would both meet reliable sources guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Skm2008

Hi. I'm letting you know that I found out that Skm2008 created a sockpuppet. Because of that, I extended your block to about 3 weeks (and indefblocked the sock), as well as blacklisted his site. --w^{L<speak·check>} 06:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

your message to Pe De Chinelo

You may be interested to know an RfC is in progress regarding this user's conduct at [4] which is coming close to its end. This edit regarding the United States has been added as it is POV and technically racist. Feel free to sign it. chocobogamer mine 19:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Jonty Haywood

I have blocked four sock/meat puppet accounts indefinitely. I have also asked User:Lifebaka to review the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonty Haywood. That discussion was clearly tipped by the socking. The article should probably be deleted or relisted for further discussion. That may help matters. Jehochman ^Talk 20:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping clear this up. With luck, he'll give up his campaign on Wikipedia and go back to defacing banknotes. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry: NewYork483

Recently, I reported an editor for suspected sock puppetry. I am contacting those editors who may have had some unfortunate dealings with this guy. In your case it was with his puppets. Specifically NewYork483, whom you have warned on numerous occasions[5], and his other puppet, Baseballfan789, in the AfD on Joe the Plumber where he attempts to mitigate your comment.[6] The purpose in message is only to make you aware of the case. If you would like to review what I have written you can find it here.[7]

On a slightly different note, you may want to check out the puppet master’s repeated vandalism of VASJ.[8] [9] [10], and one from his puppet.[11]

Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Nicely researched. A positive CheckUser would be a slam dunk for a block of all accounts. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Trade

I am struggling with all the navigation fundamentals. But your sarcasm i can understand and appreciate enun though its a little subtle. So maybe if you throw a little help my way I could check my shelves for parts you may need for your Chevy since I own a salvage yard.--Manchvegassalvage (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Accident or arguments?

"(cur) (last) 15:08, 23 December 2008 Ohnoitsjamie(Talk | contribs) (52,812 bytes) (sports teams frequently do this; we don't need to mention every instance) (undo)"

High "sucker",

You recently not only reverted the former edit about a sportsteam collectively growing beards, but together with that a lot of names, that recently have been added to the section famous persons. Maybe you did that accidently, but in case you didn't, there must be an argumentation. Could you please tell more about it? VKing (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the list of famous persons; no I didn't. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Barbaro hoaxer

Thanks for your help on dealing with the hoaxer. If you have questions about this ongoing problem, please see User:Barneca/watch/societyfinalclubs. Edward321 (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, blocked them for block evasion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's yet another one: 63.26.32.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That was quick; cheers! —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, I'm not intimately familiar with all of the hoax details...is the current version of Barbaro family correct? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the subject as well; I was only helping out where there was obvious mischief afoot (and now I've watchlisted it). He continues to IP hop but I've been just reverting (and now have an open checkuser request). Thanks again —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 22:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Info on the hoax and the socks is at User:Barneca/watch/societyfinalclubs. The current version of Barbaro family seems okay at the moment. The things to watch for are additions about Vitus Barbaro or Vitus Sebastian Barbaro or such, especially if they claim he is related to the historical Barbaro family. Also, new edits to any member of the family, the Albergo article, or the articles (especially) schools listed on User:Barneca/watch/societyfinalclubs should be eyed very carefully. The Barbaro hoaxer often lists sources that do not back the claims, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grace_Talarico_di_Capace shows one such example. Edward321 (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• The Vitus Barbaro hoaxer is back, using the 63.xx variable IP. Take a look at the edit history of Vision Industries Edward321 (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the hoaxer's been rangeblocked for another month [12]. Edward321 (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne edit

I'm sorry I 'don't see why this is SPAM could you explain. thanks PS maybe this page need archiving . ??? TALK ^???? 15:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There's already been a [about it]. This is the second time I've seen a single user add it to multiple articles. If I see it crop up again, I'm sending it to the blacklist. There are plenty of better sources available for such information. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks ??? TALK ^???? 16:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't template you

You deleted a legitimate discussion with links, and you're refusing to edit collaboratively. Your deletion was inappropriate. Please restore the cite for the multiple reasons I cited that you deleted, presumably without even reading, since you've had absolutely no justification for the deletion of material that *I* added. I don't work for Towers Perrin. THF (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You deleted my comments on your talk page, so why are you concerned about me doing the same thing? I didn't say you worked for Towers Perrin. I'm asking you to not restore contributions from single-purpose-account spammers. If you can get consensus from a few other experienced editors that the content should be re-added, I'll leave it be. Otherwise, please do not add it again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is why it's pointless to edit Wikipedia -- too many editors like you who fight for the sake of fighting without any regard for accuracy of content, and you want me to waste lots of time lobbying over a trivial addition, and threaten me without any basis for trying to improve the article. Fine, let the article stay crappy, and omit the leading statistic on the subject. THF (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie was inducted into The Hall of The Greats

On December 31, 2008, User:Ohnoitsjamie was inducted into

The Hall of The Greats

This portrait of Sharin Foo was dedicated in his honor.
David Shankbone.

Aw shucks! You should've have. Thanks, David! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A7 deletion of Randall Svane

I just declined the A7 deletion of Randall Svane with a comment that I would add sources momentarily because a Google news search found appropriate sources for him. Was your subsequent A7 deletion an edit conflict or did you not look at the history when you deleted it? In any case, I have undeleted and added the sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't see the A7 decline. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been subsequently put up for AfD here. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Waking The Cadaver

I was wondering if you could unprotect that page. So that it can be created again. Please and thank you.--DABANANAMUFFIN (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not unless you can provide some evidence that the band meets WP:MUSIC notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit

See this vandalism edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=French_fries&diff=261765037&oldid=261654185

Warrington (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Aggravating situation

Please give me some information on the user below and state for my enlightenment the authority wherewith he threatens good faith editing. IMHO, he has taken "ownership" of the Christmas template. I have scanned his history and it appears he has demonstrated an abusive "tough guy" approach to other WP editors. The "Official Warning" below appears to be a "cut and paste" job with some minor editing to suit the situation. Please clarify. Thanks! ReverendLogos (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Official warning Please stop. If you continue to add the Baby Jesus theft link to the Template:Christmas without discussion you will be blocked for not following code and for vandalism. You also are to discuss any new additions before you add them to the template as of now due to past lack of recognition of WP:Policy. This is not a punishment, but action against what appears to be aggravated vandalism. If you stay on the template long enough and continue the way I have explained I will lift your warning, if you do not follow instruction you will be blocked from editing. Thank you, and one more thing don't threaten someone with more authority then you ever again :). --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You may want to give him a real link to me, maybe User:EveryDayJoe45 will work for you... On another note no matter who you try to convince its not going to work. When your met with disagreement upon an already set page, you must take it tot the discussion. Therefore my friend you lose, and I told you that several times and you didn't listen so you got a warning, and as I said do it again and your vandalism (even if it is built upon good faith) will have to be punished. And this is directed at ReverendLoos not you Ohnoitsjamie. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Encouraging use of the talk page is always good, though using taunting language like "therefore my friend you lose" is probably not helpful. Many of us are guilty of letting our emotions slip into our edits from time to time; let's try to keep the tone more civil and neutral. Both of you have made a lot of useful contributions, and I'm hoping you'll both continue to do so; let's try to bury the hatchet and move foreward. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually bother to check references that you delete ?

We maintain one of the world's most comprehensive website for worldwide public holidays (no names) and many large corporations spend a lot of money licensing data from us. This afternoon while browsing, I felt sorry for the glaring errors on the wikipedia page for "list of holidays by country" and spent an hour of my time fixing a few of the errors with links to pages on our website that describe the changes that occured and give references to our sources.

I was astounded to receive a curt messsage a bit later telling ma all the corrections I made were canceled. I don't mean only that my links were removed, but THE EDITOR WENT THROUGH THE TROUBLE OF RE-INSERTING THE ERRORS WHICH I HAD CORRECTED !!! If you had at least bothered to follow the URLs I supplied you would have kept the corrections I made even if you wanted to remove the URLs.

This kind of shoddy editorship (knowingly re-inserting erroneous information) will make me deeply suspicious of anything I find on Wikipedia in the future.

In any case, it is certainly the last time I donate my time and expertise to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obeltrami (talk • contribs) 18:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has plenty of helpful editors who's primary purpose does not involved plugging their commercial software site. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia might very well have plenty of helpful editors, but they obviously never go anywhere near your "list of holidays by country" page which is missing more than half the countries of the world and is riddled with out-of-date information. As for our site being commercial, that may be the case but if you had bothered to check the supplied URLs, you would have seen that our "evil" commercial site does contain, free and for all to see, the entire up-to-date list of worldwide public holidays for 2009, for each and every country of the world, which is more than can be said for your aforementioned page I foolishly tried to improve. FYI: you can throw all the editors you want at that page and you will still not get it anywhere near right; there are about 5-6 people in the world able to clean-up that page, and all of them have to work for a living (ie. they also have evil commercial sites). --Olivier Beltrami (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You may want to check out WP:SPA and WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thnaks for the suggestions. I had read the COI section, but understood that as long as the links pointed to non-controversial, relevant, useful and free information it could point to a commercial site (as if the chief engineer at Boeing linked to some Boeing web pages to illustrate some point he was making). The SPA, though, I had not seen, and seems best suited to what my contributions to Wikipedia could be; worldwide public holidays. Reading the page on SPA, though I could not figure out how to mark my account as such ?--Olivier Beltrami (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

By single-purpose, I meant with the single purpose of adding links to a website that sells software. The Boeing example is a bit apples to oranges, as Boeing is a highly notable company. That said, if a user started canvasing links to Boeing on nearly every aviation-related article, that would be equally inappropriate, regardless of the user's affiliation with Boeing. Though academic links are usually appropriate, we would discourage a user from canvasing links to a single institution for the same reason. Furthermore, the information that your site provide is nearly always available from other sources (such as government pages). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

One comment before I abort my attempts at shring my expertise. You have no idea how wrong you are when you write "the information that your site provide is nearly always available from other sources (such as government pages)". First of all, only about 30-40 countries have, as of today, published their 2009 public holidays lists. Second, half of these postings are incorrect with moveable dates (such as Easter) still showing last year's date. Our expertise is being able to discover the public holidays of the other 200+ countries and semi-autonomous territories. You don't believe me, try getting the list of official 2009 public holidays for Russia (I'm being nice and not suggesting Bhutan or Tuvalu). Finally, if I had put links to newspaper articles in my edits the landing URLs would have had tons of popups and ads, but you will not find any popups or ads on our website. Best regards, --Olivier Beltrami (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You could suggest the link on the Talk:List_of_holidays_by_country page, though in fairness you should note that it is a commercial site that sells products. If you can get a [{WP:Consensus|consensus]] opinion that it would be appropriate for that page, I wouldn't object further to its inclusion. However, you should avoid canvasing it on other pages. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate

This warning is completely inappropriate when we have been having a small disagreement over whether to include a sentence. You are acting as if I have been vandalising Wikipedia. I have been perfectly reasonable and I would expect you to engage me in a reasonable way, rather than threatening to block me. Mister Lady (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've asked you twice from your IP to not remove sourced content, and a third time from this account. There will not be a fourth time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I find your comments very aggressive, and I feel that threatening to block me in a misuse of your powers. As you do not seem prepared to discuss this without threats and demands, I have raised my concerns here. Mister Lady (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie is absolutely correct here, you're edit warring to remove properly sourced information from the page. Please stop, and take your concerns to the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Spam

hi Jamie, new, aspiring editor on wikipedia and I'm sorry that i violated the guidelines on "ad exchange." I added the link about Microsoft acquiring AdECN which is one of the major exchanges in advertising. How might I better add this? Also, there was another link from imedia connections which i did not add but I think is a great info article. Guess it sounds like i did add it. Anyway... how could i add that back? If neither is good, ah well. thanks for your time. Im sure I didn't add this feedback/question in the right place either. Ipsofacto123 (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's already covered in List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft. I'm not sure that it's notable enough to be included elsewhere. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It's good its on the Microsoft page, of course. But I think it's important that it's also on the ad exchange page. My reasoning is that ad exchanges as an advertising model have been adopted by the three key players in online advertising which shows how important this model is and will be. Yahoo bought RightMedia (680 mil). Google bought DoubleClick (with its ad exchange - $3.1 bil). And then Microsoft bought AdECN (unknown $$). From an online ad industry perspective, this is the holy trinity as it were and their seminal influence is important. Thanks for reading. Ipsofacto123 (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Any more thoughts on this Jamie? Obviously, I'm still arguing for inclusion on the ad exchanges page. I think it's notable. Thanks. Ipsofacto123 (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Try posting the suggestion to the talk page for that article. If you can find a few third-party news items about it (i.e., not press releases), that would help bolster your notability claim. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jamie - Took me a while but I finally added the discussion item. Check it out if you get a chance. Like to get your input. Ipsofacto123 (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Jamie... can we add the adecn link to the ad exchanges page? I opened a discussion. Thanks. Ipsofacto123 (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You make a good argument, though my personal opinion is the techcrunch and NY Times links are sufficient to source the acquisition. Just be aware of WP:UNDUE; i.e., it may be worth mentioning in the Ad Exchange article, but I don't think it should comprise a large part of the article either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Jamie. Check it out. I made the change and all I added back was the original link so that it winds up in the reflist. If you want me to use TechCrunch or NY Times, that's fine, too. I like all the info provided on the original link because it leads to more information on key players like doubleclick, right media, etc. Ipsofacto123 (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

About Edit

Accidentilly 'undid' something that had slander from a previous vandal attack. The paragraph I added is true and you didn't give me time nor the opportunity to source it. I was doing so when you blocked me. --216.17.75.89 (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And I'll block you again if you readd the material without providing a reliable source. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for Vandalizing

I am sorry for vandalizing the White People article earlier but I got very upset when I noticed someone vandalized the Black People article and You guys did nothing about it. I had to go in and correct it myself. If you are claiming to ensure the security of other people's work, you should do so in a more impartial manner.

Anyway not knocking the work you are doing but you need to do a slightly better job so that people like myself won't get irate or offended and motivated to vandalize other people's work.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neo returns2006 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

One instance of vandalism does not excuse you from vandalism. Vandalism is added and reverted constantly. It's usually reverted within seconds, but sometimes it takes longer for someone to catch it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The information was sourced, liberal information nazi's deleted it. If I know how to get it back I would. You can see the old cites on the changed pages, if you care about the information and truth so much and know how to do it, you fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.152.233 (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not my job to find the source. If you want to put the information in, you find a source. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Charles Kennel

You have deleted this page on the basis of a copyright violation, although I had put a hangon, explained my point in the talk page and heavily edited the page so that when the page was deleted there was no copyright violation anymore. I would appreciate it if you compare the latest version edited by me and the text which is supposed to have its copyright violated, and you will see that there is nothing in common. The text was also sourced, with six sources provided. I kindly ask for the article to be restored.

To be more complete, I indeed did a copyright violation with the original edit of the article. The reason is the following : I took the text from an old NASA Mission to Planet Earth brochure, on the assumption that since it was NASA, it was government work and therefore PD. Unfortunately, the UCLA web site used the very same text on its web site here and therefore the bot detected a copyright violation. Then another user put a speedy. It would be a very interesting discussion to know if a text which was originally in a NASA brochure can be copyrighted, but I did not want to enter into that and I tried to correct the problem by heavily modifying and sourcing the text. Hektor (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would appreciate at least an acknowledgement of my post and an answer. Charles Kennel member of the National Academy of Sciences and its space committee chairman is notable and the version of the article you deleted was sourced and without copyvio. I think I have acted in good faith, I recognized I had made a copyvio, although unwittingly, and I have made my best to correct this mistake. Thank you. Hektor (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Should I ask for a Deletion Review ? Hektor (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Charles Kennel

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Charles Kennel. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hektor (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Cache of Page

Hello, I am new to wikipedia, and I was surprised to find an article I added deleted. There were some friendly points made last week about notability and so on, which I responded to, and revised the article to make it more objective and added ISBN research references to the book publications. I understand you are trying to keep wikipedia to a high standard, but I don't even seem to have a cached copy of the article anywhere. Could you please provide some info on where I can get a cached copy of the article, and a brief explanation as to what I could do to amend the article so it meets the proper standards?

The article was "Sarah Yehudit Schneider". Thanks, Sam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samshnider (talk • contribs) 06:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There was no evidence that the subject meets WP:BIO notability criteria. We do not maintain bios of anyone that's written a book or two, especially when the books are self-published or printed by small presses. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Jamie, can you please provide a link to my deleted page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samshnider (talk • contribs) 10:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't exist anymore. There's nothing to link to. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:The-web-hamster

You need to stop him editing it. This is a sock account, has been ongoing vandalism relating to Drake's Circus. DuncanHill (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mike-Jones-at-dc. DuncanHill (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, was aware of the situation. I've added your user page to my watchlist as well. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Obesity

Many thanks for your comments about the obesity page. It has been just me editing for so long that I have become a little sloppy. Dell did a good article review a while back. Made a number of comments which I have addressed. He however is to busy to do another. Wondering if you would be interested? I know it still needs a lot of work for featured article, but I think it is a good overview at this point.

Many Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes just wondering if you could do a good article review as per WP:GA. It explains all the criteria there. I do not think it is up to WP:FA yet. But maybe one day. It is a very large topic. I have split bits and pieces off into other article recently. Help with grammar and prose would be appreciated. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocking policy question

Just to help me better understand the blocking policy, could you explain your block posted at User talk:Goatfur which does not seem to comply with the notification policy as I understand it. There was no warning that indicated that continued actions would result in an block, let alone an indefinate block. I would agree that his edit history would justify it had the warning policy been followed. I realize there might be other factors involved, but they are not mentioned, which makes your blocking action seem excessive. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Two warnings are sufficient for an obvious vandalism-only account, which are routinely blocked indefinitely. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Words, and definitions, do matter

Bless you. I was starting to think it was opposite day on Wikipedia. Every day. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk page blocking?

I can understand why you blocked User:Ummairsaeed but why did you block his talk page? I was trying to post a helpful suggestion when you did that. ~Amatulic (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

He was using it to post insulting comments, so it was protected for the duration of the block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, but full protection? I understood that blocked user talk page protection needn't extend to other users who want to post a comment. ~Amatulic (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

With partial protection, he'd still be able to post to it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I am misunderstanding something about Wikipedia:PPOL#Talk-page protection, where it says "MediaWiki now supports disabling users editing their own talk pages when blocking.... (And it does not prevent other users from editing the page for typos etc)." This implied there was a way to protect the talk page from that user but not from others like me.

If there is a way to do this, I'm not aware of it. In the protection dialog I get, the choices are "Allow all","Block new and unregistered," and "Block all non-admin."

In any case, I was going to suggest an answer to his question "Are there Muslim administrators?" I wanted to suggest looking through all 383 entries in Category:Muslim Wikipedians to see if any of them are administrators. This led me to wonder, is there a way to search whether a page belongs to multiple categories? Say, Administrators and Muslim Wikipedians? I thought you might know. WikiProjects can sort of do this; for example I can find all WP:WINE related articles that are in the "stub" category. That sort of combines two categories. I wondered if one could do that for any two or more arbitrary categories, without one being a WikiProject. "Muslim Wikipedians" and "Administrators" was one example. ~Amatulic (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be handy to crawl categories like that, but unfortunately, I don't know if it's possible or not. A Muslim admin isn't going to help him achieve his desired result (removal of the illustrations). The FAQ that was linked already covers that. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I figured, if he could find a Muslim admin, then he'd listen to that person more readily than a non-Muslim admin, and perhaps gain some enlightenment about the existence of those images. I guess I can propose a category-intersection tool at Village Pump. Thanks. ~Amatulic (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Religion of Susquehanna"

Hello,

My name is Randy Robertson. I'm a professor of English at Susquehanna University, and I am teaching a course on the history of media. One of my assignments for the class is that we create our own religion. The point of the exercise is to show students how sacred texts can accrue material over time, some of which is inconsistent with what was there before.

It is also, however, a serious attempt to define the values of the class. As students will be students, the initial comments in the entry will be frivolous, but my hope is that over time it will become more serious, and that as a class we will build a page that will stimulate thoughtful discussion. It was originally titled "Religion of Susquehanna," but because Susquehanna's Board of Trustees might get upset about that, I propose to call the entry "A New SU Religion." I hope that you let this page stand. Many academics are hostile to Wikipedia; I like using it as a learning tool in the new media world, where movements can be created online before they exist in the "real world." If you would like to discuss any aspect of this proposal further, please feel free to contact me at robertson@susqu.edu.

Sincerely, Randy Robertson (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

While the concept is intriguing, unfortunately the subject would fail several Wikipedia criteria for inclusion, including WP:Verifiability and No original research. I would suggest a "free wiki" site. There are numerous ones out there; I think Wetpaint and Wikispaces are among the most popular. Most offer free Wiki hosting for academia. Regards, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: 'Spocker'

You have yet to convince that the information, though arguably vulgar, is unwarranted in the article: after all, the Mo' Urban Dictionary is published and there are more than 8.5 million Google hits for the term, thereby making it rather notable. Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to read WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. Google hits are not accepted as a measure of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I am well familiar with the policies; it is ironic, almost lame, that you challenge the notability of 'Spocker' herein when 'shocker' is contestable in and of itself in this context. Whatever. Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

So nominate it for deletion if you think it's contestable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Lewis University Rugby

Dear Editor,

My Name Is Brother James Gaffney, President of Lewis University. I am a Catholic Brother and was just informed by Michael Scanlon, one of my former students, that this page had been made only to find it deleted. Here at Lewis University we are proud of our Catholic and Lasallian heritage, our commitment to education, and our tradition of excellence in Athletics. Our Rugby team is a shining example of what our students can accomplish with hard work and how one person can make a difference. It is also an extremely important part not only of our school but of our community. I have seen pages for such schools as Harvard for the rugby teams they have, but I see no reason why our page was deleted while their page is kept. We have not the tradition yet, but we will soon, and although we are a Division II school in terms of the majority of our Athletics, we are proud of each team the same nonetheless. Please reconsider adding our page. Thank you and God Bless

Sincerely,

Brother James Gaffney, FSC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.117.6 (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. The subject doesn't come close to meeting WP:BIO notability standards. Furthermore, I wonder what Brother Gaffney would think if he discovered that students were attempting to impersonate him. Perhaps I should contact him via email to alert him to this message posted on his behalf.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

WHY?

You deleted my page about the band, for no reason! why? cmon! tell me! you think its alright?, the warning said that it would be deleted, unless there was something special about the people in the band, and i put what that was, and you still deleted it!, im ashamed of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Sign Post Army (talk • contribs) 22:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Your band does not meet WP:MUSIC notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Black president

I have completely rewritten this article and cited all new material to address unref'd concerns. Please review your deletion nomination. • Freechild'sup? 09:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The rewrite has not changed my opinion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

White People

You cant be serious look at that page seriously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people and you are promoting it wat non sence

What? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Those pics Somalis and south indians as "White People"

Heres what they have AS REFERANCE

" Bonnet, Alastair (2000) White Identities: "Nevertheless a much stronger current of scientific research supporters the theory that Europeans were but one expression of a wider racial group (termed sometimes Caucasian, Aryan and white), a group that included peoples from Asia and North Africa... in A Geography of Africa (Lyde 1914) 'The non-European population of Africa belongs mainly to one of two races, the White and the Black' Amongst the whites of African are included 'Arabs and Abysinians... Berbers and Tuaregs, Masai and Somalis'" p. 18"

BTW Somalians are not North African they are east african they are black!

You need to remove that pix -_- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oct11988duh (talk • contribs) 23:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S The artical is about "WHITE PEOPLE" it would would be same as adding White peoples pics on Black People artical...seriously <_< Artical is not about Caucasian but "White People" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oct11988duh (talk • contribs) 00:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As the text indicates, the photo is their to indicate that their are different schools of thought as to what exactly "white people" means. There's no reason to remove properly sourced info. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

howdy.

so, black president has been sourced and reworked heavily. is there a process for taking a new AfD vote now that it's been changed dramatically, given that most complaints may be addressed now? Headlikeawhole (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

After the article is deleted, you can take it to deletion review. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

???

Why is giving people information about swimming pools spam? I thought this site was used to help people find information on certain subjects. I guess not. Sorry for trying to help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.166.65 (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't need links to every site you're the webmaster of. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

are you saying it's not helpful? Is that not the intent of this site to help people find the information they are looking for? I built my own swimming pool and found that a lot of people wanted the information. Why is that spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.166.65 (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What I'm telling you is, MM, is that if you post one more link to a site you're affiliated with, I will have all of them blacklisted. See WP:EL and WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

KegelCoach

Hi Jamie!

Kindly advise how the addition of KegelCoach to the "Kegel Exercises" page qualifies as advertising outside the acceptable bounds dictated by Wikipedia's own definition of advertising, "Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style." The entry isn't a link, and it doesn't it present any particular point of view. It also does not recommend, critique, nor use superlatives in its presentation. It's written in no more of a promotional manner than are the two products that are allowed, KegelPad and KegelMale. KegelCoach is a legitimate service which, by definition, is appropriate to mention by name alone in a paragraph giving examples of same. Isn't it entitled to the same representation as those products currently allowed? What am I missing? :-) Kindly advise. Thank you for your time, Jamie! Doctorsinclair (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no indication that it is a notable website. Also see WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverting to very old versions

Hi Jamie, are you aware that you've been reverting (accidentally, I'm assuming) to some very old versions with the edit summary "rv forum"? Here you reverted to an Aug 1 2007 version undoing several hundred edits at Hawaii. And here you reverted to a Dec 26 2007 version at El Dorado Hills, California. --MPerel 01:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That was a mistake on my part (had the wrong version open, thought it was the current version). Thanks for catching that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for a peer review for Spokane article

Hello Jamie, Im looking for an editor to review the Spokane, Washington article after it is done being reviewed for GA status. If you are interested, holler back on my Talk page so I can stop looking for reviewers. Thanks! Anon134 (talk) 07:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Im taking your lack of a response for a 'no' and offering the task to another editor. Thanks anyway. Anon134 (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, been kind of busy lately. I can take a peak at it, but I can't promise a thorough review. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

KegelCoach2

Hi Jamie,

Thank you for your reply.

You mentioned that there is no indication of site notability. Where must this indication occur and how is it determined? Research on KegelMale, for example, reveals no such notability in keeping with Wikipedia terms, with the exception, if it might be considered, of one company-submitted online press release.

Regarding conflict of interest, where does such a conflict occur? I have no financial stake in the company, but regard it as an effective method of guided kegel exercise. Please advise. Thank you. Doctorsinclair (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Company press releases are not WP:Reliable sources. Newspaper and magazine articles usually are. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Mail

Apparently, you don't think the front page of the "Mail" is a source. This refers to the bail-out at Goldman Sachs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. If you post it again without providing a link to said source, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that I use dynamic IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that I can protect pages and block IP ranges. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Afd of Mucoid plaque

Mucoid plaque is up for AFD... again.

The latest discussion is here. As a previous participant in a AFD discussion for this article, you are encouraged to contribute to ongoing consensus of whether or not this article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the Fairness?

Ohnoitsjamie: As I told Dancter, I really think some administrators are being dictatorial and indiscriminate in their editing and deletion of external links. There are links to commercial sites which are selling things, which only offer very meager information on a subject which are not deleted, but a www.johnkeats.org is removed, which contains only poetry and information about poets. Incidentally, a site like john-keats.com is allowed an external link. Where is the fairness? Dovereg (talk) Dovereg (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC).

Please see WP:EL and WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 11:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't mean to canvass but...

I thought you might want to see this: [13]. Basically it stems from these comments [14], where I'm referred to as a racist. --Quartet 15:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie, what would you suggest I do with the adoption page? It's technically in his user space, could I request an AfD? Do I blank it but leave the history? What do you think? Padillah (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a tough one, given that he's not indefinitely blocked (though the next block will be indefinite). I'm not sure under what criteria it could be deleted. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Jeffrey Pierce Henderson

All this drama over a power lifting record? Talk about "undue weight". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Good thing I wasn't drinking milk just now. If there was ever a "funniest Wikipedian" award, you'd definitely have my vote, Bugs. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Glad to be of service. My sense of humor has been honed through decades of observing the giants - Henny Youngman, Groucho Marx, Bennett Cerf, etc., until I've got it down to a pseudo-science. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Black People and Their Place in History

This is a stub about a book of controversial claims by an eye doctor and self-styled historian. It was published by a marginal press or self-publisher (can't find it), and has not been reviewed or supported by reliable sources. I tried to nominate it for deletion, but am doing something wrong and can't get it listed. Can you help? Thanks.--Parkwells (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, there were "nowiki" tags around it, which prevented it from being rendered correctly. If the WP:PROD is challenged, you can send it to WP:AFD. Let me know if you need help with that. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, someeone removed the WP:PROD and said on the Talk page that I misunderstood the ideas about notability and confused it with truth (or something like that.) Nothing substantive has been added, and there aren't any reliable reviews of the book which I can find, just repetition of what the guy claims. I've read the Wikipedia material carefully and still think we're wasting space to give such trash any credence by repeating their claims. What do you think?--Parkwells (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Block concerning "Disruptive editing"

The most recent revisions to Hispanic and Latino Americans were in reaction towards the bad-faith revisions of unsourced and outdated content, in addition to unsourced sociopolitical bias.

The original objection concerned a new section entitled Media representation, complete with verifiable sources. However, it would get deleted based on a frivolous issue of "Cut & Paste;" meanwhile, unsourced and clearly partisan material in the following Political Trends section was always restored. I made the efforts to discuss the material with the original opponent, SamEV, and later Jersey Devil. Unfortunately, these would quickly erupt into so-called "flame wars" including cynical credential attacks. There were also frequent revisions of poor grammar and outdated statistics, implying perhaps that ALL changes to the article went unread.

SamEV eventually moved onto other areas of the article. For a while the additions remained undisturbed, outside of a one-word edit by another user, and were apparently tolerated by all other users. About a week later, however, Jersey Devil charged back threatening deletion if the destructive revision of outdated, unsourced, and point of view content was undone. When confronted, J.D. opted to fullfill the threat rather than explain the actions.

There was and is nothing disruptive about my work. I should not, nor should anyone else, be punished for standing out against hypocrisy and intolerance. Jersey Devil should be held accountable for incompetence, P.o.V. pushing, and administrative abuse.

Here is my proposal and my declaration of innocence. M5891 (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with your position. There's already been a consensus established, and you seem determined to push your point of view. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Georgelives

Indef blocking of an editor with whom you've had repeated negative interactions just doesn't ever look good. If he screws up again, feel free to drop me a note and *I* will indef him, or ask any other uninvolved admin. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar of good humor

For this unblock decline

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For "This isn't the wiki you're looking for", which made me laugh out loud in a way I haven't in a while while editing. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It's not often that I get a golden opportunity to use one of my favorite Star Wars quotes in an unblock without being a jerk. I have a new hope that Matt shifts his attention to a more appropriate wiki. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)