User talk:Ohnoitsjamie/archive20

User:EntrenchedBcrat

Hi there. I just saw you blocked the above account. I'm not sure who it is, but it's not Moulton. Completely wrong geolocation - Alison ^❤ 05:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm willing to believe that this is Moulton given the location and that he signs his name thus, but EntrenchedBcrat isn't (even if the IP has now edited his userpage) - Alison ^❤ 06:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• OK, will unblock. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Rude users

Nice reflexes -- reverted and blocked in under a minute. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, sometimes I get lucky with timing. Cheers! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Vaughn R. Walker

I just acted on a request for semiprotection of this page due to a request from WP:RFPP. (Three people were in support). I notice you had recently put it under pending changes. Would be happy to discuss further which one is better. The stream of awful BLP stuff on 4 and 5 August is something to behold. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections to semi. I just thought I'd try pending first until we knew how much attention it would get. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Leet External Link Discrepancy

Hi Jamie, we had a little back and forth on the External Link for the Leet page. After reading your comment on my Talk page, and researching the external links best practices, I believe I have a good case for putting my preferred link in rather than the one you have there now. You have the leet translator at albinoblacksheep, but I feel the translator at brenz.net better meets Wikipedia's criteria. Below is my argument for changing the link:

Is the site content accessible to the reader? The current link (Albino) is not always available (I have experienced script errors which prevent the page from working), slow loading, and it does NOT pass Section 508 basic Accessibility verification, while the brenz.net translator does pass Section 508 verification. Also, albinoblacksheep does NOT have valid HTML nor CSS markup, while brenz.net does have valid XHTML and CSS. Please see the validation links below:

Invalid Albino 508 results

Valid brenz.net 508 results

Invalid xhtml albinoblacksheep

Valid xhtml brenz.net

Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? As far as usefulness, the brenz.net translator provides translation to/from Leet to English, while the albino only works from English to Leet and not the reverse (as far as I can determine). The brenz.net translator is thus useful for parents and other non-leet-initiated as a way to drop in a chunk of leetspeak and get a better idea of the meaning.

Is the link functional and likely to remain functional? The brenz.net leet translator has been around for years, and is arguably the premiere leet speak translator out there today.

So, unless you can provide good reasons for keeping the other link, I'd recommend changing the link to the brenz.net translator:

• L337 Speak Converter Bi-directional Leet Speak Translator.

Please let me know your thoughts on this! Thanks.

Twotrue (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The article should either have one or zero links. There are numerous leet translators easily discoverable via a Google search. I kept the Albino Blacksheep one because that site is notable, as opposed to the one you insist on adding, which is essentially a personal page. Personal pages rarely, if ever, meet WP:EL guidelines (with the exception of adding personal pages to the individual's article if that person is notable). If you are affiliated with that site, be aware of our WP:COI policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Jamie. It seems you've decided that the notability of a website outweighs the accessibility and functionality of the content. Otherwise, it seems you haven't taken the time to actually use these translators. In either case, the loss is one that is shared by the Wikipedia community.

Twotrue (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

[Peak Oil] and Oil, smoke and mirrors

Dear Jamie.

Thx for your justification for removing the link I provided to "Oil, Smoke and Mirrors", the documentary about the Oil Peak.

Nevertheless I don't agree on your appreciation; It IS notable, being composed in a large majority of interviews with many notable (and non-controversial) specialists of Energy policies and the oil industry.

I don't think it is "Fringe" either. The documentary has also a lot of controversial contents, and so what? Is there just ONE history? Should Wikipedia contains only ONE point of view on everything and contain only links that support that one point of view ? I double-checked all the "Wikipedia's policies on spam, Wikipedia external link guidelines and conflict-of-interest" as per your recommendation and I continue to believe it does comply with them.

Note also that from the list of documentary films proposed, that is the only one that could be watched online for free without infringing copyrights, which in itself should be a good reason to leave this link there!

If I were defending the views of this documentary in the body of the article, I agree then you should remove them as being against the consensus. But removing this link sounds to me more like censorship than legitimate application of Wikipedia's policies.

REgards --MarmotteNZ (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggest the link on the article's talk page. If a consensus feels that it should be included, I'll respect that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Done thx --MarmotteNZ (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Management Consultants

As a published author and expert on the use of consultants I added a paragraph under 'Criticisms' which I thought was missing. All the preceding comments identify the issues with consultants, but there are also issues with how companies use consultants. This comment was deleted by ohnoitsjamie. I understand the requirement not to link to commercial sites, so happy for the citation to be removed, (as well as the reference I added in the Reference section), although I am also aware that comments on Wikipedia are supposed to be cited. So please explain your objection to the following which is not covered anywhere else in the page:

"On the other hand, for consultants to provide meaningful results and value to an organization, it is incumbent on the clients that use them to educate themselves on how to select and manage consultants. Consultants are well-trained on how to manage their clients, yet companies seldom acknowledge that their projects are less than successful, and do not train staff who work with consultants on how to get value from them." JRSouthtown (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)jrsouthtown 17 Aug 2010

See WP:ADVERT and WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Vermin Varmints

I noticed that on the .220 Swift article you changed "varmint" to "vermin" and you cited in the edit summary that it was more common dialect. I was wondering what the basis for "more common" was, since in the circles I move in, "vermin" is antiquated and "varmint" is typical usage. (Note - a google search for "vermin hunt" yield the suggestion "varmint hunt") AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And a search for "vermin" yields more than double the number of hits than "varmint." The vermin page notes this as well, citing a dictionary reference that states varmint is more common in some parts of the South. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Doing a little more research, it seems while the most common usage of "varmint" alone is for an obnoxious person, in the context of "varmint hunting" you are correct in that it's more popular than "vermin hunting." I've linked both words in the article, using "varmint hunting" in the first instance. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think "vermin" on it's own is more popular then "varmint". But in the context of hunting, "varmint" IS the phrase in common use. Thanks. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Geek

I did not edit the page Geek in any way whatsoever. You must have confused me with another user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.50.157 (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You may not have edited it, but someone using this IP a few years ago did. In other words, nothing to worry about. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

spam links

The mike grost stuff is everywhere. I'm cleaning it up when I see it as well. Looks like it's been going on for a while. Nandesuka (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I started working on it, but it looks like it when one for awhile and no one noticed. Thanks for the help! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Followup: Just found a new cache of similar links to "writeups.org". See e.g. Special:Contributions/Ghostwise. Nandesuka (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

213.0.89.11

213.0.89.11 (talk · contribs · block log). Have you been noticing the ppdictionary links as well? I've lost count of the number of open proxies I've blocked after adding these links. Do you think it's ready for mass removal and blacklisting? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like most have already been removed; I removed a few more. I'd support blacklisting. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Howdy. I really don't think that the additions I have been making qualify, but please let me know what your objection is and I will gladly revert where applicable. FYI, the site I am adding links to (posa.sanbi.org) is non-profit, strictly informative, and generally innocuous, and I am being as discerning as seems reasonable regarding adding it as a reference to articles. For example, I did not add it to a list of African invasive species because it does not support that type of query or listing; but it certainly provides access to information on a comprehensive range of southern African plant species. Let me know... R —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReubenDjango (talk • contribs) 23:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

See the blurb at the top of my page, as well as the links in the numerous warnings posted on your talk page. In short, we don't allow link canvassing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jamie, thanks for your feedback. I have looked at the material you advise, and I honestly don't know what I have posted which is not relevant. Please let me know and I will revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReubenDjango (talk • contribs) 23:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing more to explain. We don't allow link canvassing. Also see WP:COI. I'm not going to debate this further; I've already directed you to the appropriate policy pages. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jamie, excuse me if I am being wikipedia-naive, as you can see I am not a seasoned contributor. I am absolutely happy to revert anything that is deemed to be link canvassing, but I am honestly not clear what I have posted which might be considered such. In the interim I will revert all my edits. Please consider that (a) I am not providing links to any commercial sites and (b) I gain no commercial benefit from any of hte links I have included. I honestly thought they were useful. I will revert now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReubenDjango (talk • contribs) 00:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Like the bite of the mountain gorilla I wear my scars with PRIDE! All edits reverted (not by me, but hey):- rock-ON! :) ReubenDjango (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering Don't bite I would like to know how to escalate this to someone higher up the chain to arbitrate. ReubenDjango (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record

I understand that you deal with a lot of people spamming their blogs. However, I genuinely feel that the article on Leo Dorfman benefits from a link to Mike Grost's literary analysis of Dorfman's work -- and I should know, since I'm the one who wrote the article in the first place.

Please note that I'm not upset; I'm just letting you know about a false positive. DS (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

We blew away all of the Grost links because they were being spammed by a single purpose account. Not sure if the link has been blacklisted, but I wouldn't object if an established editor such as yourself wanted to restore one. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I did some rummaging, and you're correct in that Nzkpzq's behavior really wasn't appropriate. But you might want to double-check that the Grost links you removed were added by Nzkpzq (for instance, the one in the Dorfman article -- I'm the one who added it in the first place!). Grost really is a genuine source of literary analysis on this material. Still, no harm done. DS (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Georgia Boy Choir

A while back I started a page for the Georgia Boy Choir. I was deleted because of the requirements on music groups. Since this time the choir has been part of a cultural exchange with China and has been picked as the "Choir in Residence" at Christ Church in Oxford England. This choir was also an offshoot of another choir that does have a page in WP. This was a split that resulted in multiple newspaper articles in the major Atlanta newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funhog (talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm only seeing one article here, and it's not significant coverage. You'll need to provide some links that have non-trivial coverage from more than one source. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are 2 of the articles that detail the split: http://www.accessatlanta.com/celebrities-tv/atlanta-boy-choir-names-119595.html http://www.accessatlanta.com/atlanta-music/conductors-firing-sparks-rift-112644.html

Here is a link to one of the articles from the cultural exchange: http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2010/07/01/georgia-boy-choir-sizzles-during-17-day-chinese-concert-tour/?ref=search A link to the website with video from the tour: http://www.georgiaboychoir.org/tour/china-videos Some information about the Oxford Choir in Residence program: http://www.chch.ox.ac.uk/cathedral/music/visiting-choirs The Boy Choir Festival that we hold http://www.gaboychoirfestival.com/ The website for Boy choirs magazine with the choir on the opening page: http://www.boychoirs.org/contents.html

If you need more please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funhog (talk • contribs) 20:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK. If you do recreate the article, be sure to add the links so that it's not speedily deleted by another editor. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

talkpage

Thanks for the note regarding the deletion of the talk page and subsequent deletion of my edit here:[1] The subject of the article, as I mentioned on the talk page, has a knack for self-promotion. This violates not only NPOV but other essential aspects of WP. I also suspect socking as well. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry. In the past I blocked numerous NYU IPs, which is where Lin attends/attended school. I keep an eye on the page as well as other pages that have been spam targets. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you've obviously got more profciency in this kind of stuff than I do, as evidenced my by sloppy report here [2]

but a quick review through the history of the page, the subject's history and patterns point to WP:DUCK...From what I see, the subject is using WP as another venue to promote his work. I understand the internet is fertile ground for self-aggrandizement (and this guy's honed his skills in this area), but this is an encyclopedia, and I'm sick of seeing this place turn into a jungle with animals holding up billboards promoting this or that in subtle write-ups of obscure stories, "art" or whatever.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

deletion of dating coaching content and references

thank you for the comment however your wrong again because the article is interesting read but 2007 doesnt compare with the reference I gave of an online database of counsellors and trainers which is continiously updated as its a review site (I just checked it has 130 current courses with pricing in the list) I think you just shot yourself in the foot for deleting 1st on the basis of reference- mine is better - and secondly content- mine is more accurate! please be so good as to reinstate with any further correction you think is valid thank you--82.28.45.245 (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC) sorry i messed editing this but i think its now cleaned up! --82.28.45.245 (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:COI, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:ADVERT. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

ok, ive checked and none of the above apply to the last edit you reverted, you correctly drew my attention to an out-of -date article so i deleted that and reinstated my up to date information- i am looking for another reference - i am trying newspapers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.45.245 (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jamie,

I was wondering why the link I had posted for the UK silly bands site was removed. It was once removed before as I had never posted anything on Wikipedia before and I added some information to various parts of the article. Then I resubmitted just the link to the site, and this was allowed and remained for a week or so, until you replaced it with the link for an article.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.70.38 (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The blurb at the top of this talk page and the warnings posted on your talk page explain our policy on using Wikipedia to promote websites. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of the article Chepakovich valuation model

Jamie,
The model (though not referenced as the Chepakovich valuation model, but with identification of Alexander Chepakovich as it author) is discussed in the follwowing references:

• Peter J. Sander, Janet Haley, Value Investing For Dummies, 2008, ISBN 9780470232224, p. 213.
• Amine Bouchentouf, Brian Dolan, Joe Duarte, Mark Galant, Ann C. Logue, Paul Mladjenovic, Kerry Pechter, Barbara Rockefeller, Peter J. Sander, Russell Wild, High-Powered Investing All-In-One For Dummies, 2008, ISBN 9780470186268, pp. 596-597.

Best regards, Alexander —Preceding unsigned comment added by Investor123 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Names

I didn't want to do it by last name. Nothing personal. M4pnt (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Click this username please!

I have blocked this person, for vandalism and because I suspect he may be a sock of those already-blocked users who vandalized the page in the past, such as Thisisthebestusername!. I really don't think there are that many people in the world who know about this school, let alone vandalize it, unless it's been in a news story somewhere that has drawn attention. It looks like you've deleted much of the edit history now, which I think is good. Would it be acceptable to fully delete all of the latest user's edits per WP:DENY, or are we supposed to keep them, even if rev-deleted? —Soap— 21:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I was trying to delete all of their revisions before, but they managed to get some more in before I was finished. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to your edits to the David Copperfield article, though they are a bit pointy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please contact me

Could you please contact me regarding your comments on my contributions. I am brand new here. Thanks --Nizarsh (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What about them? I reverted the paragraph per our WP:OR and WP:NPOV policies. Those links contain explanations of the policies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

16:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)16:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)16:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)16:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)16:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)~ Hello, why are you removing my edits on the history page of 'coupon'? I was adding a historic event which changed the momentum of coupon industry. Before PARIS systemwas launched, manufacturers were handicapped as they had to go through piles of paper reports to determine coupon performance and launch similar coupons. Billions of dollars exchanged hands in coupon industry, but no one thought of creating sophisticated web based tools to equip manufacturers with forecasting, budgeting and monitoring of coupons. Procter and Gamble, Quaker, Kellogg, Ralston Purina, General Mills and Kimberley Cleark sent volenteerily experts to contribute to the design with the intention of bringing new revolution to the industry. Wellitsguru (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Wellitsguru

There's no evidence that the company or the event is notable. You'll need reliable sources to establish that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

User name

I love your user name which I've run across here and there, tho I hope never to have to exclaim it. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Me too! I try to keep the drama low, but do frequently incur the wrath of folks wanting to use Wikipedia to advertise or blatantly push POV. I think you're safe. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Safe for now... I shudder at the very thought and highly appreciate your work at the same time. I think we can cooperate. Contradictorily yours, SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Techwriter2B/Filmcracker/another sock (TardyHardy), block request

Another sock of banned editor user:Techwriter2B/user:Filmcracker/75.2.209.226/64.252.0.159/64.252.140.128/etc. [3]. You’d mentioned previously that you’d block this guy given Duck. Thought I should contact you.

user:Filmcracker, his last named ID, was blocked by Kww on July 18, 2010, and you blocked his IP 64.252.0.159 sock on July 20. A couple days thereafter, user:TardyHardy popped up. The first edit from user:TardyHardy was on July 23, 2010. Obviously not a novice editor (advanced editing skills – bullet points, italics, templates, knowledge of WP process, etc.).

Claims on his user page to be a UCLA alum, which might be a feint (it’s typical for this guy to put on various fake personas to disguise identity – e.g. church volunteer, student in a class, etc., etc.).

Topic focus of article edits is a very close match to article topics he focused on under his prior IDs (as I’ve described previously – e.g. see LTA page under Targeted areas, pages, themes). Articles involving Wisconsin – including University of Wisconsin, newsworthy Wisconsin residents, WI locations, etc. are a long term focus. Under user:TardyHardy, examples of this include [4] (in the past he’s made numerous edits to this same University of Wisconsin–Extension article), [5][6][] (a regional beverage with a cult following in southern WI, where he appears to be originally from), [7] (this article involves a resident of Marathon County, WI – residents of which are a particular focus of his), etc. Another long-term focus of this editor is geneology/tracing ancestry, as in the following edits under user:TardyHardy[8], [9](Formerly Chief Family Historian for Ancestry.com – where Ancestry.com is a particular long-term focus of his attention), etc. Another long-term focus are articles concerning Christianity and prayer, such as [10][11] (you might recall this focus from your own prior interaction with him, where he was claiming to be a church volunteer and posting prayers). Under user:TardyHardy, he’s also editing a bunch of articles about films (and actors in films), focusing predominantly on films from the 1950’s (as did user:Filmcracker, and edits under prior IDs) and including 50’s films with religious themes (e.g. [12]), as under prior IDs. He also really likes to edit articles about counties (as in [13],[14]), articles concerning psychology/famous psychologists ([15]; in some previous discussion page arguments for psychology articles, to bolster his position, he claimed to be a psychologist himself),and articles concerning WWII in Europe/Germany (e.g. [16][17]).

To dissect a particular example – edits to The Bridges at Toko-Ri[18]. He previously editing this article under his user:Filmcracker ID. Those edits were reverted by user:Rockstone35 on July 15. The new edits under user:TardyHardy (August 23) contain most of the exact same alterations in language as the previous edits by user:Filmcracker (July 14). For example:

The Bridges at Toko-Ri is a 1954 film based on a novel by James Michener about a naval aviator assigned to bomb a group of heavily defended bridges during the Korean War. It was made into a motion picture by Paramount Pictures and won the Special Effects Oscar at the 28th Academy Awards. It follows the book of the same title emphasizing

Edited to:

Filmcracker/TardyHardy:The Bridges at Toko-Ri is a 1954 film about a naval aviator assigned to bomb a group of heavily defended bridges during the Korean War. Based on a novel by James Michener, it was made into a motion picture by Paramount Pictures. The film follows the book in emphasizing

Another example:

U.S. Navy Lieutenant Harry Brubaker (William Holden) is a pilot who previously fought during World War II, went back to his civilian job as an attorney, and is now a recalled naval reservist further engaged in the Korean War flying jets from carriers.

Edited to:

Filmcracker/TardyHardy: U.S. Navy Lieutenant Harry Brubaker (William Holden) is a pilot who fought during World War II, returned to his civilian job as an attorney, and is now a recalled naval reservist in the Korean War flying jets from carriers.

In the article, he’s essentially reinstating all the edits he made under Filmcracker.

A long-term behavior of this editor is stalking/targeting of article edits by user:Centpacrr. TardyHardy is doing the same thing – e.g. [19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24]. Here’s [25] a post on a discussion page, immediately following a post by Centpacrr to argue the opposite position (tracking Centpaccr’s comments and posting contrary arguments is standard operating procedure for this guy). One long-standing argument he has with Centpacrr is the inclusion of references/links from CPRR.org (note that Centpacrr’s username is in reference to the Central Pacific Railroad) – here are two examples of user:TardyHardy characteristically removing such CPRR.org links [26] and [27]. In addition, this editor has a long habit of placing lots of warnings (commonly including COI warnings) on the pages of other users – here are two examples of this under user:TardyHardy: [28](this involves edits to an article about a geneologist), [29] (in this latter case, involving edits to University of Wisconsin–Extension, I don’t even see any good evidence of COI, unless he personally knows the individual behind the username he's accusing). In the case of user user:AlyssaGregory, he also deleted a redirect that the user had placed on their own userpage [30] – from prior experience with him, he seems to feel entitled to edit the userpages of other editors (i.e. another characteristic behavior). Some of the talk comments he has left under user:TardyHardy also have a rather demeaning flavor (another characteristic behavior), though I think he's trying to control himself a bit.

In addition the nature of the edits and edit summaries (content and specifically word usage) tightly matches edits under his prior IDs. An aside - one thing I’ve noticed is that it’s not uncommon for him to somehow generate edits that trip off Cluebot (for example, under user:TardyHardy[31]) – he always reverts these and deletes the Cluebot warning from his talk page [32] (it’s generally his practice to remove all warnings from his talk page).

Sorry this post is so long – I didn’t want to leave any doubt. I prefer my duck roasted. A block appears to be needed.

Thanks much, Eurytemora (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to second the motion for a block. This person is the single worst violator I have encountered in my 50K plus edits, banned twice from my talk page and determined to thumb his nose at the community to get what he wants. Would appreciate any attention you can give to Eurytemora's richly detailed and fully justified request. Thanks! Jusdafax 05:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur 100%. I have been a major "wikistalking" target of this user for more than six months now and caught him/her again yesterday morning (Sept. 10) using this new sock when he/she made this posting to an obscure Image Deletion Review discussion page opened just a few hours earlier. Less than an hour after I posted my comment on the page the sock posted a "comment" taking the opposite position to mine. Kudos to Eurytemora for his absolutely fantastic job of analysis of the new sock's postings to confirm his/her extreme "duckiness". Please block immediately. Centpacrr (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. A anticipate an outraged unblock request per past behavior, so I linked this research to the user's talk page. Thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to you. I have only had to take a tiny percentage of the abuse that others have from this morals-challenged person, but it wasn't fun. Here's hoping they take the hint and go find other things in life to do. Best wishes, and thanks again, Jusdafax 00:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocking them was the easy part, thanks to the meticulous research from Eurytemora with assistance from Centpacrr. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued and timely assistance, Jamie. I have been dealing with being stalked (and having my contributions vandalized) by this unhelpful "anti-Wikipedian" for more than half a year now during which period he/she has wasted countless hours of the time of myself and many others with his/her disruptive behavior. Eurytemora has indeed been a "God-send" with his spectacular analysis and dissection of the patterns of behavior of our ham-handed "friend from Connecticut." Let's hope that this is the last we see of this perp although, alas, I doubt that it will be so don't be surprised if we call upon your good offices again. Centpacrr (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly another Techwriter2B clone

Hi Jamie. Don't relax just yet . By talk page stalking I came across RobertFarleyJr (talk · contribs). OK, it's West Virginia instead of Wisconsin, but the style is kind of similar. From looking at this deleted file, it could of course just be sock of Robt.W.Walker (talk · contribs), but there is something about that long-winded style. Favonian (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...not as WP:DUCKy as the last one. For now I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ohnoitsjamie. You have new messages at Stacyjj's talk page.
Message added 16:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit warring on Morality

Hi there,

You reverted my reversion of Faust's tendentious edit-warring on Morality with a note to take it to the talk page first. If you had read the actual talk page, or looked at the page history, you would see that there has been extensive conversation and every other editor who has since commented on it agrees that Faust is filibustering the consensus process and pushing his POV in the article against consensus.

I don't know how you came by this page, but your straight reversion without noticing any of the above history in the article makes me suspect that Faust has canvassed for your support. If that is not the cause, I ask that you please look at the talk page and the history to confirm what I have said above and revert your reversion. If you do not, I have no doubt that another editor involved in the overwhelming consensus against Faust certainly will do so himself. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I was not canvassed by anyone. Discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not mean to discuss change to the article here, only to draw your attention to the talk page there, since it appears that you have not already read it. I have nothing more to say than what has already been said there; if you would like to comment there on why you think Faust's version of the article should remain despite overwhelming consensus otherwise, I would like to hear it. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Phil Mushnick

Hi. You deleted this as an attack page, which it was, but only because it had been vandalised 10 days ago. I have restored it and gone back to a pre-vandal version. I had some doubt which to choose; the subject is evidently a controversial character, but I chose the last full version which included sources, rather than this later unsourced stub to which it was reduced by an IP who removed most of the rest with the edit summary "COATRACK". I'm not sure that was the right decision, and would welcome your looking at it and changing it if you think best. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Good call on that. I'll keep an eye on it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Just Edited page

Does that look better? Eyrryds (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's better, but the initial problem remains; your unilateral insistence that the links belong on the page. Obviously, I'm not the only one who has issues with this. As I've advised you before; drop it and move on. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well with all due respect that makes no sense at all. No wonder we were not being able to understand each other. All this time I thought you were complaining about the fact I added links. I would like to say that the two scholars I am quoting are two of the most respected and prolific Islamic sunni scholars of the last century. By all means I encourage you to look it up yourself. These quotes again most certainly are good material as I have been saying all along. (please see Islamic terrorism talk page) Eyrryds (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

somebody else

Ching Hai is NOT the founder of the Quan Yin method, she is merely a spiritual teacher of the ancient and highly secretive Tibetan Buddhist sect. I practice the Quan Yin method and I do not belong in her association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rivluk (talk • contribs) 20:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If you actually look at the revision I made, I did not revert that part. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Prod tag

Hi Ohnoitsjamie - I've removed the prod tag you added to Icarus Witch. This is because the article has already been through an AfD, and so per WP:PROD, is not eligible to be deleted through a prod tag. If you still wish for this article to be considered for deletion, please nominate it at WP:Articles for discussion. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Lightning

I added a link to an Europe lightning map on the lightning page because I thought it would be nice for readers to look also at realtime lightning over Europe as there is also a link to a US map, but nothing similar for Europe (except a local lightning detector, not a network): Map of lightning strikes in USA over last 60 minutes I did put this link for a good reason, e.g. to have the reader an example of lightning network and data in Europe. Regards Weatherweenie (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This good enough?

Please sir, can I have this line instead then as it doesn’t differ from the context of the two previous sources you allowed ‘to stay’: “By working with a Mentor means that you can have an element of flexibility in your education as you don't need to leave your job in order to learn” :-) BroJo79 (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Obvious WP:COI issues. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting your websites. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but at least have consistency. The dude from one of the two links you deemed not spam actually says on his homepage: “My trade mentoring is referenced by Wikipedia under "Stock Market Education": etc etc” He is actually blatant about the fact he is advertising on Wiki for his own good!! And then the other 'reference' just jumps on the back of his sentence and doesn’t even appear to add anything! How can you reference something you didn’t even write?? So where do I differ??BroJo79 (talk) 16.30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If you find links to sites that are not notable and/or don't appear to meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines, feel free to remove them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

User:69.178.192.1/22

Hi I see you blocked IP User:69.178.192.1/22 (a.k.a. User:69.178.194.140) for trying to change your password/hack your account. The latter IP tried to do the same thing to me so I started an ANI report on him. They told me not to worry since they can't read my emails. However I think a indefinite block is required here. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It is true that it's not a real security situation; I blocked more for the disruptive aspect of the attempt. We rarely indef block IP addresses (with the exception of open proxies, but future blocks, if warranted, will be for increasingly longer durations. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Baby got back?

Please see Talk:Baby Got Back. I hope you can explain the matter better than I can--to someone who isn't really listening. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Need your input

Hi, I'm JD. I hope I'm doing this right. Let me just say how much I love Wikipedia and all that you guys do for it!

Regarding a recent article (Acai berry) revert that happened to my contribution...Among some of the notes after the revert was the following automated reply from you:

"...Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Açaí palm, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability..."

First and most crucially, thank you for that. I am trying to learn how to contribute in a respectful and verifiable manner. Every little bit of advice to that end I deem to be helpful.

Second: as I try to understand where the editor and I disagree on the contextual placement of my contribution please know I am not attempting to bring that disagreement to you. It is their article and I am content with their choices (for the moment).

What I am puzzled by is the content of the automated note (above) I received from you. My confusion basically stems from two facts: (1) I had indeed properly cited my paragraph, with a separate citation backing up each remark. (2) I was using information from another Wikipedia article I had read. I did not cite the article as a reference. The SOURCES I cited were the same as those used by that article.

Aren't the sources of another Wikipedia article reliable?

Well, that is all. Thanks for your time and all that you do for Wikipedia.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by J.D.Editor Alpha 1957 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which edit you are talking about, as there are no edits to the Acai berry article from your account. I did revert edits by an anon IP for not adding a source. Though a source was later provided, another editor reverted those edits on content/relevancy grounds. You'll want to take up the matter with them, not me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

In Appreciation

Thanks for your help on the article James Molinaro. I feel like it was a long and lonely battle , lo these many years (since July 2009), and your actions signify that the greater community has finally listened to my struggles. I would appreciate it if you would add that page to your watchlist, as it is on mine.

Keep up the great work! And, again, many thanks! Sincerely,SteelIron 21:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, always nice to get good feedback. I didn't do an exhaustive evaluation of other disputes, but the edit in question was clearly in violation of WP:BLP. The page is on my watchlist, and I'll watch for clear violations, but if there is a deeper issue going on that requires a review of an edit pattern or whatnot, give me a summary first. Thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

you reverted a broken link fix

Jamie You reverted my fix for a broken link in ibn al uthaymeens page. please take the time to check links before reverting. The link I added used to point to the correct article until you reverted that and then became just a broken link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_al_Uthaymeen

Eyrryds (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You didn't fix it, you changed it to a different site. I restored it to the correct version from the original site. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

well it wasnt working it sent me to a page with no article in it. The page I used had the same article but not so much info. It is a well known message Ibn al-uhtyameen sent so I know what they were talking about. Anyway for some reason the link you just reverted to does work so its all good ... (by the way it didnt use to work for several days before this I think it should be kept an eye on)

Eyrryds (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually the link I added has exactly the same information in it, Check for yourself if you like. Just wanted to clarify.

Eyrryds (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

death

well, but actually something like this must be there. people must know how to avoid millions of repeated lifetimes of rebirth and death life after life. Krishna consciousness is solution, isn't it?

‘chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala (previous name for Shri Chaitanya-bhagavata), he immediately becomes a great devotee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.17.50 (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

at it again

Hi, Oh No, someone is at it again on Tao Lin, reverted the work we've done on the page. Not sure what to do here, as for some reason reverting hasn't changed it. Help appreciated. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding notes you made on my sourced links

I am fairly new to editing pages, regarding notes you made on my sourced links, should I only list the info as a reference and not an external link then? I am a meeting planner and low level mod on the site (most mod's are meeting planners with MPI) and it is the only web published source of fee information that is confirmed by MPI and it's members as well as IASB and it's bureaus, as far as I understand this site meets requirement as a credible source do to those fact, and is also non-commercial. To me the information seems to fit as it provides valid current profession/work related material and provides additional material not listed elsewhere. Not trying to spam or anything, but this seems to be relevant info not provided by any other official source. Heliosandwich (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As per the policies cited in the warnings, as well as the blurb on the top of this page, we don't allow link canvassing period. Wikis are not considered to be WP:Reliable sources. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)