User talk:Ohnoitsjamie/archive18

Block?

I answer to personal attacks. I never attack! The others can attack and me not?--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately while they are responsible for their actions you are responsible for your actions. So no you can't attack back. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting reconsideration of my "spam" contributions...

First of all, let me say thank you for dedicating your time to improving wikipedia.

I've recently made some contributions to various articles, and you have flagged as spam. As a starting point for discussion, please review the contribution I made here: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Cambridge%2C_Ontario&action=historysubmit&diff=323185370&oldid=323156043

In my opinion, this seems like a quality edit to an existing article, adding valid and helpful information to the article. If the site being referenced if your cause of concern, could you explain which aspects of it are deemed to be "spammy"? It is significantly more user friendly than the official census page.

I don't want to take up any more of your time than is necessary, but I would appreciate more of an explanation from you, if possible.

Thanks in advance, Jimmy socks (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't need commercial "mirror sites" for providing stats when government sites providing the same stats are available. This site has been spammed by three different single purpose accounts. If the link is added again, it will be blacklisted. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

tao lin spam

many of the articles being spammed have been proposed for merger, some with the merger banner being up for months. how can we get the process facilitated? Theserialcomma (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

We could just be bold and do it... OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

i don't know how, or i would. i assumed it was an admin-only action. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Forum links

Hi, was wondering based on your greater experience whether the addition of forum links such as [1] are ok...it's a new user. Thanks, SynergyStar (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a little bit of a gray area (forum links are common and tolerated in some pages), though I tend to err on the side of removal unless there is an especially popular or notable forum. Popular forums are easy to find via websearches as it is. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the guidance. SynergyStar (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

1857 Article

The war is not considered a mutiny by both India and Pakistan...the term Indian mutiny is only employed by the then British Occupation Regime, the Indian and Pakistani governments refer to this war as "War of Independence".

Take it to the article's talk page. There is already a consensus there (in the archives). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I will not edit the title..but changes with regard to biased and non-neutral words used in the article will be edited.

I suggest you propose changes to the talk page first on controversial topics such as this. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oral Sex pics

Please provide your reason for removing the hard core pics on the article's talk page.Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

re: Richard Relucio

Appears to be socking again to get around his temporary topic ban of University of the City of Manila via User:Nash17. See this edit, which appears to be classic User:Richard Relucio. (Note that several months ago I'd blocked User:Nash16 as a Relucio sock). I'll leave it up to you whether you'd like to reblock RR (I've already blocked the sock).OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for alerting me to this. I contacted the editor to ask for his comments and as I have had no response so far I've reblocked him. If and when he replies, I'll ask the committee to formally review the position.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on technical evidence, it is extremely unlikely that Nash17 is a sock of Richard Relucio. Richard Relucio has therefore been unblocked and the tag on Nash17 removed.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"Spammed links"?

What do you mean by that? The NY Times article I cited is clearly a reliable source and in no way spam.Hoponpop69 (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

My comments were regarding the dyingscene.com link, not the NYT link. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Avatar (2009 film) protection

Hello Jamie, I've noticed you've protected the Avatar article. I don't blame you to be honest, but is there any chance you can change this to semi protection? The problem is coming from a single anonymous IP which keeps changing, not the registered users. I've reported the IP for 3rr violation, and the problem is that he keeps removing the proper budget estimate with references and replacing it with $500m. The reverts from the other editors have been to simply restored referenced information, so it would be great if we could get on with looking after the article. Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, it is semi-protected. I'm in thick mode today! Betty Logan (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I figured semi-protection might be preferable to a large range-block. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Industrial robot

HELP1 Someone keeps entering their company in the list of manufacturers and I keep deleting it. It's an edit war and we need arbitration of some sort. I have no idea how to go about it. Can you help please. HELP2 Also in the list was a company called TOSY who make a ping pong robot. I deleted the link but they have their own page. Is that right? It looks like self promotion to me and fails on notoriety. How can I get that assessed for deletion? You are the only administrator I know. It's not clear how to get in touch with admin Robotics1 (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the first dispute; discussing the issue on the talk page if the first step. Whether or not the mfr belongs in that list is debatable, though the other editor may have a WP:COI issue. Regarding the second; see WP:PROD and WP:AFD for info on how to nominate pages for deletion. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster parody

You recently removed my edits to this page due to a lack of cited references, however what I added is (1) referenced in a book by Richard Dawkins and (2) simply a statement about a colloquial usage. I suggest adding my comments to another section in the article.

"Proponents of intelligent design sometimes consider the use of this parody as a cop-out to serious discussion. Some other internet and IM users consider phrases like, "time for the flying spaghetti monster" as a request for a joke or a more jovial topic." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blairius (talk • contribs) 17:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Advertising Education page

Hi Jamie, I am confused: you just removed a link that I just added. The link is to an ad school, and it was at the [Advertising Education] page. How is that spam? it seems to me that is totally related and useful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.134.31 (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:EL, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising schools. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Worldenc's charts

I would just like to inform you that I've started a thread here about Worldenc's charts. If you could take a look, that'd be great. Killiondude (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

hallo from uwe kils

• the article has been written by my former students, i only added high resolution royalty free images, some information and links. everything is true and proovable. do you know of any professor who has the Heinz Maier Leibnitz Prize[2], the Heisenberg Prize and the 500,000 Bioscience Prize of the Volkswagen Foundation? an eb-1 visa http://www.foreignborn.com/visas_imm/immigrant_visas/employment_immigration/eb-1.htm for which you need an international notable price in the league of nobel prices? you have my colleague daniel pauly http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Daniel_Pauly_Pauly_Symposium.jpg, he is not half as famous as i was. i am retired long time.

we donated thousands of photographs and i editied thousands. i donated over 40 000 dollar anoumously over the years. it would be nice if you have the entry alive, so my grandchildren and former students could find me. i shut down all other accounts. you can cut it down to 5 lines no picture. it would be nice if the categories stay.

best greetings and good luck to wikipedia, which is the greatest on the planet (see my endorsements on user kils, my gallery there and my gallery on commons user uwe kils

http://web.archive.org/web/20010803121250/krill.rutgers.edu/uwe/

Professor Dr. habil.habil. u. k.

user kils Uwe Kils

The deletion discussion is the venue for this, not here. My opinion is unchanged. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin's Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		To OhNoitsJamie. Many thanks for keeping articles clear of spam and other nonsense, particularly in catching (twice), the returning "askgeo-mapzones" Sock/Spammer. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking Admin's like you! --Hu12 (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers;)--Hu12 (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I only wish I would've caught it sooner. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please explain this deletion

[2] --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey I commented on this (just after you did below) and I've already added it back in. I'm sure it was an accident. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Accident

Hey you accidentally removed this reply. my diff. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, certainly didn't mean to....surprised the software didn't detect it as an edit conflict. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

re: your message

Hi Ohnoitsjamie, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 19:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Why Spam

My additions are with geninue interest to the reader with additioinal information. Why you thought those are spams?--Haja maideen (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The links provided on your talk page warnings explain why. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

uhse elite university

i erased it for him, he is sailing, he asked me to transmit to all that he is sorry. it was written by me. good luck - chandra (uwe´´s secretary) Uwe Kils 15:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Christmas song links

Hi Jamie. I'm trying to figure out the rules here. Read the policies on spam. It sounds like my external links edits were appropriate but need to be reviewed by another person. I was trying to add links to recordings and music scores for several Christmas songs (a hot topic for the next few weeks). In some cases there were none and my links were unique. Do I understand correctly? - EltonSmith —Preceding unsigned comment added by EltonSmith (talk • contribs) 16:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No, they're not appropriate. Wikipedia is not a song directory, nor is it for promotion. See WP:EL and WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. I'm trying to understand how Wikipedia works. Why are there other similar links on some of these pages? Are they grandfathered or are they different somehow? I know you are the boss, but I don't understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EltonSmith (talk • contribs) 16:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting an artist. I've already provided you with the policy links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Gang article

I have improved the Gang article as best as I can. I have made over 50 edits on it. So, How did I do?. I am trying to get the Gang article in a good article status. What needs to be done to get it in good article status. Is it missing some information and references.

I like your help and input.--Zink Dawg -- 16:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to head out the door, but if you haven't already read WP:FACR, that's a good place to start. (Oh, and right of the bat, I'd say the stylized rendering of "Gangs" in the infobox has to go. It looks silly). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the gang logo in the infobox. Let me know if I need to do something. --Zink Dawg -- 17:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Inappropiate links

Hi. I was sure this was going to happen, and I perfectly understand why. But if you will take 1 minute to take a look at the website [3], you will see that is not a commercial site, or anything like that. Just an informational website to which I want to gather some visitors, and, given its content, the links, I believe, were rather in context. Sorry if you feel that it should belong here. Ionut Cojocaru (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle. Also see WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If it wasn't a personal site, I'm sure it wouldn't have been any problems. I guess it doesn't matter THE ACTUAL content of a website, just the owner... Ionut Cojocaru (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you've been reverted by three different editors should tell you something. Add the site again and your account will be blocked indefinitely. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is still going on, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#homemade-atlas.org. Looks like image spamming is occuring...--Hu12 (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Vendetta

If you have a serious grievance, please contact the arbitration committee before you attempt to wikilawyer an established user in good standing into an indefinite block. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I simply reported an obvious policy issue to another editor, who took appropriate measures. I stand by my action. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You were in a long-standing and convoluted dispute with a user and you attempted to get them blocked from editing wikipedia by soliciting a sympathetic admin. "Simply" is a bit of an understatement. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I was one of many admins to decline an unblock of the user following legal threats. In reviewing the editor's history, I noticed a pattern of WP:COI regarding two articles with questionable notability, both of which I nominated for deletion. I call that policy enforcement; if you want to call it a dispute, that's your call. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I gathered you recognized it as a dispute because you asked a third party to intervene when you dug up some dirt about that user, instead of blocking him yourself. There's no reason that you can't report apparent policy issues to another user, but your approach did not appear to be a neutral one. First, you contacted an administrator who was already involved in the situation rather than contacting an uninvolved and neutral admin. Second, you did not take the time to confirm these allegations with the user, who is presumably mature and intellectually honest enough to handle them. Third, your reply rephrased my comment to mean that I was disagreeing with your motivation regarding the legal threats, coi editing, and self-promotion. For the record, I don't. However it is telling that the only issue you neglected is the accusation which led to the block and my involvement in the first place.

The issue appears to be working itself out, so there is no reason for me to press any further. This post was simply one of those "don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining" reminders. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Your suspicions were correct and then some, I'm sorry for doubting your motives. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the follow up. I'm sure we're all happy to put the matter behind us. On another topic: yay for Remain in Light, truly a fantastic album and well-deserved article for FA. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Kils

Hello, Ohnoitsjamie. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:ANI#Role account used for COI editing. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly curious-- does a secretary typing for you via phone count as a meatpuppet, or a sockpuppet? Would it depend if you were on the line at that very moment? ...So, with that last ANI "resolved" does that mean it's over now? Like, really over? Can I just pretend that none of the photobucket user pages and other articles created are just... not there? Can that freaking fish picture in the signature be removed? ...And seriously, should the whole massive streak of the Norse user alliance group starting in 2003 with CUs outing people they didn't like actually be looked into, or should I just forget about that, too? ...Sorry to interject. It's just a name I'm in no mood to ever see again. ...Thanks. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The outcome of the CU investigation perhaps will give the matter better closure. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Medina, Ohio

Hello, Ohnoitsjamie. This is regarding your change to the Medina Ohio page on Dec 4 and the following message you left: "Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)" Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Medinafrancis1925" Hidden categories: User talk pages with Uw-advert1 notices

I did read all the Wiki pages prior to posting and I also read the current Medina page under the heading I posted to. There it lists several companies both national and local with no more or less relevance than Aadvantage Cab. Here is the actual text from that page:

Economy

Due to Medina's location, approximately 30 miles south of Cleveland,[4] many residents of Medina now work in the Cleveland area and the city has acquired a somewhat suburban status.[7]Medina is home to the first Super Kmart Center.[9] The 24/7 grocery and general merchandise store opened in 1991 and continues to operate today. However, mainly due to Medina's boom in population throughout the 1990s, the novelty of having a Super Kmart soon wore off, and Kmart's lack of response to competition from Buehler's, Giant Eagle, Target, and especially Wal-Mart, left it on the brink of closure after Kmart's bankruptcy. Medina is also home to a Wal-Mart Supercenter, which is also an 24/7 grocery and general merchandise store. In recent years, Medina has encountered the arrival of other large retailers such as Borders, Home Depot, Starbucks, Bed Bath and Beyond, Old Navy, PetSmart and Pier 1 Imports. In October 2006, Target completed an extensive renovation.' Medina is still home to the A. I. Root Company, now a candle manufacturer. A. I. Root is also the name of the local middle school.

The Bil-Jac dog food company was founded in Medina in 1947. It is still locally owned and operated.

Here again is what I added: By 2004. Medina's population growth coupled with the city and county's increased enforcement of drunk driving laws, made it clear the community needed a full-time, full service cab company. In November 2004, Aadvantage Cab & Courier opened. Locally owned, they put several cabs in service to relieve the stress on the burgeoning court calenders by giving citizens a safe alternative to drinking and driving.

In addition, the company I added has made many more contributions to the community and as someone who lives here I know that. I am not affiliated in any way except as a member of this community who has witnessed the impact the company has had. Having lost 2 family members to drunk drivers before they opened, I stand by my edit and will continue to. I will appreciate your either leaving it as is or removing all references to the other businesses as they are obviously a "soapbox" for large corporations Medinafrancis1925 (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Uwe Kils

You may relist Uwe Kils. The recent AfD was seriously compromised by sock puppet votes. Jehochman ^Talk 13:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Though the AfD was a puppet fest, a number of established editors did make reasonable arguments for inclusion (Google scholar links, etc). I'm fairly certain a relisting would result in another keep anyway. Thanks for the notice, though. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, then we are done. Jehochman ^Talk 15:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone's CV?

what'd'ya think: Christian_Beranek

Cramyourspam (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Cramyourspam

Notability is a little weak, though the work with Disney and the coverage/involvement with a notable comics-oriented publication (Newsorama) make it likely that the article would survive an AFD. I've seen much worse subjects survive AfD. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I posted that geico insurance is number 1 in lawsuits. This is true. How do I get this added to the geico wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.2.217 (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You find a reliable source to back up the claim, and use neutral wording. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I made the statement more neutral and added a link to ALL state insurance commission sites but was deleted again. STATES that have a site and have GEICO listed SHOW that they are above average in consumer complaints to the Insurance Boards. This is the most 100% relevant and in fact is the only source for counting official complaints. About the lawsuits. I don't feel I should clutter the page with a count of lawsuits per state, but I could. Would that help? They are the number 1 sued auto insurance company in NM, CA, VA, and several other states. Also when combined they are number 1 in lawsuits in ALL states.

If you can't provide evidence, you can't post it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

hallo from Uwe Kils

can you please vote again on http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uwe_Kils_(3rd_nomination). Best wishes Uwe Kils 15:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Which part of do not canvass are you not comprehending? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Geico state insurance complaints.

I took out the lawsuit information completely until I have time to go state by state and pull up this information. I understand this point and deletion.

I don't see why the fact that Geico has substantially above average state insurance commission complaints can not be included when I also include the link to every state insurance regulation department. The state insurance department is the one and only source for this information. It is the only reliable, verifiable source of information on this.

I think that the assertion that geico's profitability is related to it's lack of agents is false. But this is listed as true when there is no verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.2.217 (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to force the reader to sift through all 50 states data to determine if a statement is true or not. If you find other statements in the article that are dubious and lacking sources, feel free to remove them or tag them as needing a source. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I need a mediator. - that is the national statistic!

ok, this is insanity. I need someone to mediate this. GEICO's headquarters are in Maryland! That was a national statistic! You are not neutral on this situation. GEICO's national complaints as recorded are 2.95 on that statistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.2.217 (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to file an WP:RFC. You're going to hear the same thing there; sites such as self-published pov sites and forums do not meet reliable sources criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Barbaro hoaxer

Nothing at WP:LONG, though there probably should be. I see you found the main page for organizing info on this hoax. The link is humorous, though I find the way the Royal Forum shredded the hoaxer's claims to be more funny. Edward321 (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Spamming Claim

Hi there,

I'm not sure if the message you sent me was automated, because if you look at what I'm doing, I think you'll agree that it's not spam.

I am definitely adding links to OpenRegs, but it is relevant for all the pages. OpenRegs is a site that keeps track of regulations from federal agencies, and what I'm posting are sites keeps track of the regulations from the specific agencies for each page on Wikipedia.

I was worried I might get flagged for linking to it for all of the agencies, but I think you'll agree that what I'm doing is legitimate. I have noticed that DMOZ is a legitimate site to link to, and I think OpenRegs is, in the same way. May I continue?

Thanks, Seth Goldin --Seth Goldin (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think if you look at the guidelines, I am doing something absolutely legitimate.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:External_link#What_should_be_linked

--Seth Goldin (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. Are you affiliated with openregs? Furthermore, any relevant regulations links should be to the official site for that, regulations.gov, not a commercial site. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am affiliated with the OpenRegs. Part of the appeal of OpenRegs is that it is an alternative to Regulations.gov, since OpenRegs actually has a separate page for each agency, while Regulations.gov does not, so OpenRegs is more easily navigated. Does this qualify?--Seth Goldin (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, especially when the link in question is commercial and a government version is available (hard to navigate or not). Also see WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I apologize. I thought it would be legitimately helpful, and wasn't doing it to boost page rank. Thanks for clearing this up. I definitely never meant to spam. I apologize for any inconvenience. --Seth Goldin (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for understanding, and keep up the good work elsewhere! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Used car

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

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

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Article rescue

FYI: the page User:Ohms_law/Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116, an article which you contributed to, has recently been userfied. I planned on changing it to an article more generally about the Swedish Naming Laws eventually, so and assistance you can give in this respect would be more than welcome. Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Lost Tampon=Joke?

OK, trying again - not sure why it is OK for you to refer to lost tampons as a joke but maybe if you actually had a medical background or did some research you would realise that this is a serious issue and that it is one that ought to be addressed in a serious article about Tampons. The section on Toxic Shock Syndrome seemed most appropriate - instead of ignoring the topic perhaps you could pass the review on to a woman or someone who isn't just going to dismiss this?

It is hard not to get annoyed at someone who makes a snide remark about jokes and seriousness and can't even be bothered to find out if the topic IS serious. Perhaps it is unfortunate that the only information that has any depth about the topic available to refer to is trying to engage the topic with humor - but the content is completely serious - just read the comments on the link I posted to see how people feel about... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owenl1998 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Lost tampons are indeed no joke, but a common medical issue. Crafty (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination)

As a major contributor to the article, I am letting you know about the 4th AFD. Ikip (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Parkchester website listing www.parkchesterinfo.com

You have removed the first ever to be listed Parkchester website on Wikipedia - www.parkchesterinfo.com. Look at the Wikipedia history for Parkchester going back to 2001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.211.62 (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop removing the www.parkchesterinfo.com external link on the Wikipedia entry for Parkchester. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.211.62 (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Ret.Prof (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

About My links

Why do you think my links are inappropriate? I chech the sourse every time. Stella Vesper Stella Vesper (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for your website. See WP:EL and WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not an owner of Wikipedia and know nothing about Moscow. My links are useful, but you wish the article about Moscow to be uninformative. Stella vesper Stella Vesper (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Who are you and why do you remove especially my links? My competitors pay to you? Stella Vesper 17:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stella Vesper (talk • contribs)

I'm a admin here, and will block you if you add links to your site again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

My links

Why are you removing my links, they are genuine links providing useful information with maps. Please stop removing them. Digglog —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digglog (talk • contribs) 16:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Haifa Wehbe

Hi, I stumbled onto this article yesterday. Seems there's a bit of a brouhaha about the issue of how old she is. I removed the birth dates because there appears to be conflicting informatoin, and the date used is not backed up by the reference (it says she is 35 but does not say what her actual date of birth is). There are also other sources (not particularly reliable it must be said) saying she was born in 1976. At the moment I think the best thing is to not have a date in, unless there are some more definitive sources. Quantpole (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It has been tough to find a good source for it; the AFP article was the best I could come up with, but it's admittedly shaky. Unfortunately, if we remove it we'll probably have to semi-protect the article for awhile as there is an endless stream of anon's who'll attempt to add it/change it. I'm OK with either route.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, I agree that's probably the best out of a bad bunch. The problem is I can find other (albeit not what WP would call a RS) references to her winning a competition at the age of 16 in 1986, which would put her DOB in 1970, other ones say 1976. Hence, I would rather have nothing there. Better nothing than something that could quite possibly be incorrect. I think semi-p may be necessary either way. Quantpole (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Then "please" quit spamming my talk page with your sanctimonious lectures. Who do you think you are? 173.65.221.85 (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If you continue your disruptive editing, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Frontline Test Equipment

Hi there Ohnoitsjamie.
You put this article up for deletion, 9 April 2009 CSD A7. But it is still here. Looks like an IP 12.189.80.221 removed the notice HERE.
Can't see any notability, very possible the article written by editor with COI. Should it have been deleted? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I WP:PROD'd it, and someone disputed the deletion suggestion. Next step would be to send it to WP:AFD. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting vandalism on Liu Bang. I had a hard time dealing with that vandal. You came at the right time! Thanks. _LDS (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, very appreciated! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Boffo Box

Jamie, I think you have misunderstood my intentions of my link posting. Boffo Box is a new Theatrical Index Website that has recently been released to help people view Broadway information in an organized manner that can not be found anywhere else. I am posting links to Boffo Box on pages that Boffo Box is congruent with Wikipedia to provide users who are looking for information on the topic they are searching on Boffo Box. If you question this, i beg for you to view Boffo Box for yourself to see the helpful information that this site can provide, and i ask you not to remove any more of my links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridaderek (talk • contribs) 01:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read the blurb at the talk of my talk page, as well as the links on your talk page about our external link policy. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for your website. If you continue to add the links, you will be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not even my website, I am an Avid fan of Broadway and i found this website and i thought others may use it for anything they need to know about shows like i have. I am not an employee nor am i receiving any financial benifit from boffobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridaderek (talk • contribs) 01:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. You need to stop canvassing Wikipedia with links if you want to retain your editing privileges. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

these links provide substantial information on the topic in s format that Wikipedia cannot provide, this is not advertisement, it is providing more accessible information on the topics that cannot be provided in a friendly format on Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridaderek (talk • contribs) 05:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You will be blocked if you canvass links again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not spamming this is providing additional information on topics and i have requested a wikipedia editor to intervene on this issueRidaderek (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, if this is not the proper route to take to settle this dispute, please i would like to involve a Wikipedia administrator, because Boffo Box provides information the same way that Imdb and Ibdb do and until these sites are removed I see no reasons sites to Boffo Box should be.Ridaderek (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedia administrator. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi OhNoItsJamie - First, thanks for your work and effort in helping to maintain Wikipedia. I am the founder of BoffoBox.com and I want to apologize if I or Ridaderek have violated the EL policy of Wikipedia. Similar in form to IMDB.com, we provide both a free and paid version of our website. One for casual viewers and one for theatrical professionals. Per your EL policy, I realize that I was in violation by linking to a site that I own. I am hoping that you can help me determine how else Boffo Box is in violation of your policies. Our publicly available pages provide a wealth of information that is not available from other sources including show links, reviews, synopses, images, full credits, gross and attendance information and more. I feel that this provides enough unique and useful content to be of benefit to Wikipedia users who find this page. Boffo Box's goal is not to SPAM or violate policies in anyway but to help increase the usefulness of Wikipedia and in return gain greater exposure. Any help you can provide in this matter would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianmcm32 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Brianmcm32 (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle. We don't allow people to canvas the site with links to non-notable sites, period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for taking the time to consider my case. But, I feel that you may not have seen everything that Boffo Box contains on the website when relating to shows. After reviewing WP:ELYES #3, i find that Boffo Box fully fits this criteria. View the page:

• A Chorus Line on Boffo Box

This is a page for a show which has already done a Broadway run, and there are many aspects of this page which cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia format, if you click on the grosses button st the top of the show, a graph is displayed showing weekly grosses compared to their potential (this information is also updated on a weekly bases for currently running shows). If you dig deeper into the Boffo Box website by clicking the attendance/capacity sidebar you can also see a graph displaying the attendance at a show compared to the possible capacity on a weekly basis as well. This aspect certainly fits the requirements listed in WP:ELYES #3.Ridaderek (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing further to discuss here. You'll have to find some other way to promote the site. Wikipedia is not the place for it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi OhNoitsJamie - In your last response to me, you said that Boffo Box is non-notable. Could you help me understand what that means. I did some research and I came across these links: Don't Just Say Non-Notable. I have also read (Guide to Wikipedia Website Listing) that notability is not measured by an editor's subjective judgement. So it would be helpful if you could provide reasons why BoffoBox.com is not considered notable.

Again, after reading and re-reading the EL policy I can see why I and subsequently Ridaderek were marked as spam. I added a link to a site that I owned and Ridaderek added multiple links in a short amount of time. I'd like to walk through an example with you before you provide your reasons why we are not notable. Here are several links for the Broadway show A Little Night Music:

• Wikipedia Page
• IBDB Page
• StageAgent Page

If you look at the link for StageAgent, it provides some basic information on the show including Synopsis, Character listing and some credits. But it also has 6 advertisements on the page. iBDB provides a listing of show credits and opening night cast information.

If you will then look at the BoffoBox Page you will see that we provide synopsis, show credits, show links, show reviews, and the past four weeks of attendance and revenue information on the show. With no out-side advertising but links to upgrade if users would like more information (again similar to IMDB which is another notable site on Wikipedia).

I hope that you will take the time to review these links. Again, it is not our intention or goal to SPAM or blatantly self-promote through Wikipedia. Our hope is that we can come to a mutually agreeable way that we can provide content and professionally verified information to Wikipedia.

Thanks for your time. brianmcm32 67.84.143.57 (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not spending any more time on this. We've already made it clear that we don't permit spamming here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OhNoitsJamie, thanks for the time that you have taken so far in this matter. If it is not too much to ask, as an administrator, could you please point me in the right direction so we can get a second ruling on this. I would like to make it clear to you that I don't feel that we have gotten a fair look at our site or our content. I have provided examples above which I feel shows that we are not spamming Wikipedia and I would like to have another administrator take a second look. Again, I do appreciate the work that you do for Wikipedia. Thank you. brianmcm32 67.84.143.57 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no second ruling; see WP:FORUMSHOPPING. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OhNoitsJamie, if you review the link that you sent me, you will see that it says "For instance, if you're blocked you can ask for an outside review of said block; if this review concludes that the block was proper, it is generally inappropriate to repeatedly continue to ask for yet another outside review." since you have blocked Boffo Box, I would like an outside review of this block. I don't believe that asking for an outside review in this matter constitutes Forum Shopping. [User:brianmcm32|brianmcm32]] 67.84.143.57 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There are already two other opinions on this in addition to my own; [4] and [5]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This dispute was posted on WP:3O. Despite being resolved at least three other ways already, to satisfy the requesting user(s), I'll give my take. Since this site is not notable enough to merit its own Wikipedia page, citing the inclusion of IMDB is not a valid comparison, since IMDB is widely considered to be the foremost aggregation of facts about film and TV shows. The site also doesn't appear to include any shows outside New York City. Additionally, WP:ELNO #1 states, "One should avoid any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Mildly Mad^T_C 22:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Mildly Mad - thanks for taking the time to review this and for providing your reasons behind the not notable ruling. Brianmcm32 (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking forward to more contributions

I can see you contributed to "Contracts" article. If you have some spare time would you like to contribute to http://www.wikilawschool.org It is a non-profit law school study guide resource for law school students. Looking forward to your help! Thanks for kind consideration.119.202.38.234 (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Florida

I reverted your change to this article, because you totally nuked the infobox and broke the template. My subsequent edit removed what I think you were trying to fix. If I guessed wrong, by all means fix it, but let me know what you were trying to do. I know that you weren't trying to vaporize the infobox. (grin) Horologium (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice catch; thanks for cleaning up my mess! (I get overconfident sometimes and forget to do a preview). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Preview is your friend. (grin) If you don't believe me, look at my edit history and some of my edit summaries. (big grin) Horologium (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Over 9000 END OF STORY

Do not delete over 9000. It is far too popular to be deleted. And no it is not spam.

Florida Languages

Thanks for the concern about the citations, and you are right despite the "de facto" ideology. A citation has been added, as well as Wikipedia links to both languages which also verify the citation and the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenrqz (talk • contribs) 16:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick favor?

Will you please do me a quick favor? Delete this subpage: User:RepublicanJacobite/Chandler bibliography as it is now superfluous. Thank you! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You got it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fredy.00

Hello! I noticed you deleted the ridiculous image this troublesome editor uploaded. I'm watching him closely too, and warned him informally on his talk page (which I'm sure you saw). I don't think his latest stunt shows that he learned one thing during his time off. Very sad... Doc9871 (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

He's made a few reasonable edits, but he doesn't seem to get that anti-(insert country here) doesn't fly at Wikipedia. If he crosses the line again, maybe a longer block will make him think twice. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can think of two editors who will be watching him very closely... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehee! Nice. At least Fredy's creative! This guy has a one-track purpose in his WP life... Doc9871 (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I seriously didn't realize (or just forgot) that you were an admin! Awesome - I can't tolerate overt vandals and edit warriors that disrupt article improvement. There is a suspicion among the editors that Theremes is a sock, so an SPI might be in order. Guess I contacted the right one, huh? ;> Doc9871 (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Jamie! Fredy.00 contacted me, asking why he couldn't use his "freedom of expression", and I reminded him that there are rules we all have to follow. So far he's been quiet, but in researching his edit history, I've discovered another self-created image that is orphaned after its removal from three articles: 51st State here, Americanization here, and Globalization here. Seeing as it is orphaned and is in the same spirit as his other image, should it remain on WP? Thanks for your time! Doc9871 (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The DFenders

Please explain why you rollbacked my addition of the Template:Delrevafd tag to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The DFenders. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I'm in the habit of reverting changes to closed AFDs. I should've looked more closely at the edit. I've restored the tag. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for restoring the tag. Cunard (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Obituarist

Hi Jamie, I happened across this user who you have previously warned about spamming (User talk:Obituarist (contribs)), and this person has continued the same habit. It appears that this users only contributions are the adding of links to obituaries in The Daily Telegraph, sometimes obits which are only marginally related to the topic of the article. Some examples: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. I thought as an admin who has experience dealing with spammers, and this user in particular, you would be in a better position that I to have a look into this. Cheers! Wine Guy Talk 22:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I reverted a bunch and gave a level-3 warn. I have a strong suspicion that it's a WP:COI matter as well. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. While I try to AGF (maybe they're a Telegraph reader who's obsessed with obits?), this did seem very suspicious in regard to spam/COI. Thanks for your help. Wine Guy Talk 22:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Help !

Hello ! I need help with this user : User talk:98.122.100.249 ! YellowPops (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:King of Mercia

If this guy means what he says (although he's probably just blowing off), I prefer to have his threats fully visible, if only that it's easier to talk law enforcement through our pages if they haven't been deleted- I've learnt this through dealing with the FBI. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 01:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. Easier for them to trace him than him you. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Hungry? Here's a little snack for you on your birthday, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day, Ohnoitsjamie!

"We've got a bogie in sector 7-G..."

I'm not sure if this is a "gaggle of young goslings" or not, but there seems to be a common denominator in the previously blocked User talk:DuKu. There's an edit war that a blocking/watching admin should intervene in, IMHO... Doc9871 (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Kindly disregarded the above message... Doc9871 (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mistake?

Hi Jamie. Mistake, right? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What zzuuzz said. [12]  Frank  |  talk  18:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I noticed that too... what did MS do? Why the BLOCK? *international head scratching* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a mistake...meant to block an IP, must've slipped and clicked on the wrong link. Thanks for the quick heads up. (I unblocked and apologies to MS). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice job Jamie. Here is your reward:

Whack!

Regards SoWhy 19:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Plip!

That was for the boo-boo you just did... *lol* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A well-deserved one. (Note to self; sloooowwwww doooowwwwnnnn). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And you'll be like ""F*** You! And kick her in the face with your ENERGY LEGS! /Obligatory Powerthirst reference. I'll go now... Throwaway85 (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

TheEatery

Please tell me if you are a "Patrolling Admin". I was going to move an entry. Thank you. Senor Reparar (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I was the admin who blocked both accounts as spam-only. The CU report can be closed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I do not know how to "close", but I thought you were admin. thank you. Senor Reparar (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, after you've also blocked the IP and "Sr. Reparar" which are also obviously socks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

He also tends to write Spanish when it suits him (especially edit summaries), and that's not kosher. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. If the link appears again (and I will check frequently) I'll block and blacklist with a quickness. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a logic question though: If the link gets posted again, you're going to blacklist it. Which means it's not supposed to be used. So why not blacklist it now? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User pushing spam diet

Many thanks for blocking this User:Kheim002 who was vandalizing my user page. They appear to have created a bunch of accounts

User:Pram008 User:Rav chandni User:219.91.227.235 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Pow, pow, pow! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Warning re Brendan Burke delete discussion

It is hardly a personal attack to point out someone's faulty reasoning. The editor took a broad description and applied it to himself. This was his response: "In that case, fuck you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 04:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC--Norm, Vancouver, Canada (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC))"

Yes, I saw that response. Many consider it extremely inappropriate to be referred to as a "Nazi." If you or other editors continue to make ad-hominem attacks on other editors based on their AFD votes, you will be blocked. Period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This is my response to your comment on my talk page where you suggested I had applied the same "personal attack" more than once.:

By applied again, do you mean that I posted essentially the same message at talk pages of both danflave and FisherQueen. It seems fair to make each aware of the comment since they were involved in the original conversation. If FisherQueen considers my comment a personal attack, what was the F.U. statement she posted? Perhaps you could explain what the "many people" considered a personal attack. I merely pointed out that FisherQueen took offense to a statement that she determined was directed to her yet it could have been a criticism intended to apply generally.

I'm going to suggest that you (and others) lay off the drama. I'm not interested in participating in AFD drama. My interest is in ending it. FisherQueen has stepped away from the situation; I suggest that you do the same. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If you issue a warning that you will block an editor, you ought to be accountable for the reasons why you took that action. I respectfully suggest you issued that warning inappropriately and have not made an effort to defend it and have not retracted it.--Norm, Vancouver, Canada (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my warning for reasons that have already been enumerated by myself and others. I'm not interested in debating the matter further. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You issued a warning that alleged I made a personal attack on another editor. You further claimed that I repeated that action and warned me "Editors who make repeated attacks on other editors (especially when they're based on a good faith vote at an AFD) will be blocked."

Since I made no personal attack, I asked you politely to explain your warning. You replied that it is "extremely inappropriate to be referred to as a "Nazi." and "if you or other editors continue to make ad-hominem attacks on other editors based on their AFD votes, you will be blocked. Period." I called no editor a Nazi and have never used the word on WP. I made no "ad-hominem attacks" on anyone.

Rather than explaining your warning as I asked, you compounded your error by further incorrect statements. I asked you to be explain your claim of personal attack and be be accountable for your acts as admin. You said I should lay off "the drama." Is it drama for me to expect that warnings should be justified by the person who issues them. I expect an accurate response from you, one that does indeed enumerate reasons for the initial and the second warning and does not reference words written by anyone but you and me.

If you are unwilling to retract or explain your actions, I will refer this to dispute resolution.--Norm, Vancouver, Canada (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read the following:

You MUST (that's right I am emphasizing this word) look at the etymology of the word and the context.

From enotes.com "In modern times, the word "Nazi" has meanings that go beyond this. We of course use the word to apply to the actual members of the Nazi Party. But we also use it to refer to anyone who is a fanatic about a cause, especially one who wants to force others to agree with/be like them." and "Either way, the word's meaning (its "semantic range") has grown considerably in the last few decades of the 20th century. The popular comedy show Seinfeld introduced us to "Soup Nazi," for example, and women activists for equal rights are sometimes still derisively called "feminazis.""

Today there are "Shoe Nazis," "Spelling Nazis," "Style Nazis," etc. The list is extensive and could go on for pages actually.

The etymology of words change over time or vary by place. In the US a "biscuit" is called a "cookie," "Crisps" are "Chips," and "Chips" are "French Fries". Over time a "computer" stopped being a job that a person held, and started being a reference to a machine.

People have been PASSIONATE (there I go again using all caps) about this subject, but being offended by some of the comments that have been made really does take an assumption of bad faith on the part of the "offendee" in some instances. Lou2u (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop posting messages on my talk page about this topic. As I said before, I've already stated my case.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

External Links Removal (Job Hunting, Cover Letters)

The links you removed were current articles (not advertisements) that speak to the subject of the topic. While I understand the question of conflict of interest, they are no more promotional than pointing to any 'branded' website (about.com, etc.) (and the examiner.com link is to a parody, not sure this is what you want to be sending people to). thanks, WillardRobinson (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Will Robinson

The answer is still no, for tbe same reason that hundreds of other similar attempts at adding links there have been removed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Transfer factor

Do you think perhaps AaronMatthewWhite (talk · contribs) is the same editor as Aaronmwhite (talk · contribs), given their interest on the TF page? I've added a couple sources pointing out that it's more than a bit of quackery. There certainly doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence to support their use as a mainstream treatment of cancer, let alone the other wild claims made about it. I also read somewhere that Andrew Wakefield was a believer. Interesting... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Most likely they are the same person, though the first account isn't blocked. I haven't had a chance to review the latest additions (with requested sources), but at first glance it looks like it's going to have some NPOV and SYNTH issues, as well as requiring careful correlation of sources to statements. 20:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's already getting ugly [13] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

User:98.122.100.249

Hi, not sure if you remember the user that keeps adding non-NPOV stuff to Taiwan, but this user is at it again, this time at the Republic of China article. If you could take care of it, it would be great, thanks. T-1000 (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll check it out. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You also should check User talk:98.71.6.81, seems to be one of his alternate accounts. T-1000 (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems like this guy is using a lot of IP addresses, here's another one User:66.57.172.93. T-1000 (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Showspace

Please undo your removal of Showspace. The MTI Showspace is a social network site like facebook and others, only for young artists. The posting is not an advertisment (there is no profit or gain involved in the posting]. I don't see how you would delete the Stub for a NON-PROFIT organization that encourges young people to develop themselves as artisits. ShowSpace is free, non-profit, social networking website for kids. I would think Wikipedia would support youth groups. Please reconsider placing the article back online, and of course edit the stub to make it better. Best Regards.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endicium (talk • contribs) 22:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read our WP:WEB notability policy. The deletion has nothing to do with the merits of the organization; it is simply a function of our notability policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

the external page was not for marketing. it is for the poeple who are travelling to dubai, or the people will to do business in dubai but dont have reference there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inshasoft (talk • contribs) 18:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The answer is still not per WP:EL. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

C++

Hi, I appreciate your concern over external links, but I think the link to C++Org should be on the C++ page for a few key reasons. The documents you mention above state:

"What should be linked

1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. See Official links below."

C++Org belongs to the C++ community and as it grows it will be an official hub of news, FAQs, software library reviews and so on. It has been running for about a year, with 200 users, so far. There is no charge for using the site, and it is entirely non-commercial (and there is no advertising on the site). It is endorsed by Bjarne Stroustrup, the inventor of C++ and there is a link to it from his home page.

"3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."

C++Org contains much material that is highly relevant to C++, which for technical reasons cannot be integrated.

Could you please re-instate the link?

Thanks, dch888. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dch888 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain on what grounds you object? I have put forward a case which is consistent with the Wikipedia guidelines, and you just say "no". I think at the very least you could explain why you object. Thanks in advance.dch888 —Preceding undated comment added 14:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC).

WP:EL and WP:Reliable sources, as well as the blurb at the top of my page, make it pretty clear. With 200 users, it's hardly notable among the multitudes of resources on thew topic. See also WP:COI, which suspect applies here as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have already read WP:EL which I quoted above, and that page gives reasons for links to be included which coincide with the aims of C++Org. [[WP::Reliable sources]] I can't see how C++Org can be considered an unreliable source. It is a community site, collectively owned by everyone and anyone in the C++ community. The fact that it only has 200 users, is because it has only been running for one year. We get about one new user a day, so in another year's time we might have 500 users - when is the boundary going to occur when you are anyone else at Wikipedia consider it to be "reliable". The whole thing about reliablity seems to be highly subjective if you ask me - unless there is a specific section on that page which you are referring to, which you think C++Org doesn't comply with? As far as COI goes, there is no conflict anywhere - as I've already said (at least twice), it's a community - owned and run by anyone interested in C++, it has no affliation with any paricular group and it is totally non-commercial. For all these reasons can you please consider re-instating my edit? Thanks, dch888. —Preceding undated comment added 00:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC).

For the reasons I've already stated, no. I'm not discussing it further. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not satisfied that you have answered my objection at all. I am therefore going to put the link back on. If you take it off again, I will escalate it with Wikipedia management. The conception for C++Org was with Bjarne Stroustrup, the inventor of the language. This should be enough for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dch888 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am an admin, which is Wikipedia management. If you continue to add the link, I will block your account from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly I think you are confusing the roles of administration and management. Secondly you have sent me a message saying "Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia" which is the crux of the matter since I fundamentally disagree with your assessment that the link I am trying to add to the C++ page is "inappropriate". Answer me this: how can a website, the original idea for which was from the author of C++, be considered inappropriate? The only reason I want the link on the C++ page, is because the C++Org website belongs to the C++ community and should be linked from this Wiki page. I happen to manage the C++Org website, but I only promote it for the benefit of the community - I have precisely no other interest in this website. Simply saying "No, and I'm not going to discuss this further", not answering my specific points (which were answers to specific points raised in the official guidelines you referred me to) seems to be to be opposed to the spirit of this information sharing website. Finally why should one person decide this? This review process seems to be slightly inadequate to my mind, as for one thing there is no appeal process it would appear. Please answer my specific points and tell me what the appeal process is (if any exists). Thanks Dch888 (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You may also want to review our WP:COI policy, as it's pretty obvious that you're the owner of the site. I gave you a template warning reminding you that you will be blocked if you add the site again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concerns here and that you have a job to do, but I think you are reading the situation wrongly. You seem to think that I have something personal to gain from this - I don't. I have nothing to gain from it, other than the wider dissemination of information in C++Org to the C++ community. I am not really the true owner of the site - the site is collectively owned by the C++ community. I happen to pay for the hosting and I set it up (following the ideas from Bjarne Stroustrup and other members of the C++ community), but I do not own it. I merely administrate it to make sure it runs OK. I have contacted Bjarne Stroustup about this and he personally is going to request that the link be placed on the Wiki page. I don't see how any more official you can get - the creator of a computer language asking for a link to a site being placed on the page about the language he brought into existence. Dch888 (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The answer remains the same. There is absolutely nothing notable about your site among the hundreds if not thousands of C++ websites out there. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle, period. As I said before, adding the site again will result in a block. Petitioning Barack Obama will not get your site up here. Please devote your energies elsewhere. Users who attempt to spam Wikipedia persistently will have their sites blacklisted as well. Please do not post here again about this topic. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Main Image of Penis Article

What do you think about changing opening picture of the Penis article? Your opinion needed. Thanks! Yestadae (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Raising Kaine

I have removed the prod you placed on Raising Kaine as it has been prodded a couple of times in the past and nominated at AfD in January 2009. I have no objection to you bringing this article back to AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

re: user:Richard Relucio probation violation

I'm very sorry but your message of the 27th completely passed me by and I've only just seen it. NuclearWarfare re-blocked earlier and I've just endorsed it on Richard Relucio's talk page as an ArbCom block. Thanks for the heads up and, once again, apologies.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Northridge cookies

Hi, Ohnoitsjamie. I see you just deleted Northridge cookies under WP:CSD#G1. While I certainly agree that the article content was not encyclopedic and should have been deleted, unfortunately G1 didn't apply: "Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This excludes poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories, vandalism and hoaxes, fictional material, coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material." The paragraphs in the article were meaningful English text; they just weren't appropriate for an encyclopedia. I'm not sure if any of the speedy deletion criteria applied, in fact; I was in the middle of declining the speedy request and substituting a {{prod}} tag when you deleted the article.

No harm done here, really—the article was going to be deleted sooner or later. I'm just a little concerned that the speedy deletion criteria are being applied rather loosely. —Bkell (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You're correct; I should've changed it to A7, as G1 was a bit of a loose application. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I considered that too, but I decided that A7 didn't apply either, because the article wasn't about an individual, an animal, an organization, or web content. It was about cookies (I think—there was also a bit about lunch ladies in there too). —Bkell (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It might not apply to the absolute letter, but I don't think deleting an article about a high school's cookies is going to be too controversial. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, there was no harm done here really. However, I believe it is important for administrators to abide by the policies that have been established. There is a reason A7 specifies those four categories (individuals, animals, organizations, and web content) and excludes others. Arbitrarily deciding to ignore those restrictions and apply it to an article about a high school's cookies could come off as a bit BITEy and capricious to a newcomer. (Of course, take this with a grain of salt; there's also WP:IAR and WP:SNOWBALL.) I was just going to {{prod}} the article and let it die quietly and uncontroversially in a week. —Bkell (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mctrain

I have just posted some suspected socks there. Edward321 (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking the socks. I'm wanting to move Barbaro to [[Barbaro(racehorse}]] then create a disambiguation page listing the horse, the events named after the horse, the Venetian family and its members, the buildins, the modern Italian criminal organization and its members, the Major League baseball player, the pro golfer, the pro football player, the missionary, and the piano piece by Bartok . Edward321 (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd support that idea. Let me know if there's anything else I can assist with. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

Hello sir, sounds like a new IP user making some strange edits: [14] Thanks for the help. SynergyStar (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

hello.   how are you.   I'm sorry.   I did not realize it at first that it was an Admin that did the change there.   What I don't understand though, to be honest and frank, is why the bias against this source on this particular matter?   Maybe cuz of the religious thing with Roman Catholicism?   I guess, maybe.  Or maybe the implying of exploitation, which I didn't really see there necessarily, so much.   But, I have to say that I hope it's not to summarily in toto diss or dismiss any WT publication on any matter under the sun as "unreliable", cuz that's just not fair, accurate, or true.   But I do understand the concerns though.   No doubt.

But aside from that, regardless of any real or imagined over-tones there, I still think (I'm being honest and sincere here) that "Catholicism" is much more neutral and precise, than merely saying "Christianity".   Plus the rest of the article DOES use the term "Catholic".   "Christianity" is broad, and can mean whatever someone wants it to mean.   But "Catholicism" or "Roman Catholicism" tells people just what form of "Christianity" it was.

I have regular history text books that say "convert to Catholicism."

Anyway, whatever happens happens.   I am glad that the substance of what I put there to elaborate what went on in the Second Voyage was left.   I do appreciate that.   Like I said, I really meant no harm or slants or anything.   In fact just the opposite.   And established sources are established sources, even if we may not totally agree with everything they say or publish otherwise.   But like I said, I do understand the concerns, especially when dealing with an overall religious magazine.   I do hear that.   Anyway, thank you.   Sweetpoet (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to the change from "Christianity" to "Catholicism." However, a religious publication does not meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines in most cases, and certainly not in this context. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Condoleezza Rice

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Condoleezza Rice/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Media planner

An article that you have been involved in editing, Media planner, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ^Avicenna_sis @ 09:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC) ^Avicenna_sis @ 09:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews.net

I see you have removed the link to gibnews.net in the links section on the Gibraltar page. The discussion on the site at wp:rs concluded that it was OK for citations. It seems rather discriminatory to remove it from the links section as it is a gibraltar news site at least being updated daily, unlike gibfocus.gi which is not. Can you reconsider this as I don't want to start an edit war. --Gibnews (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It still exists as a citation on some articles. I only removed it from the external links section at the bottom. I'm one of two editors so far that doesn't think it is necessary in the external links section. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User Wiki-Expert-Edit

I was going ahead and request he be blocked per EdJohnston's comments. I wasn't sure what venue to make the request when I noticed you had commented. What do you think? --Ronz (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, he's had his last warning. Further contentious edits to the Naveen Jain article will result in a long if not indefinite block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Good enough. --Ronz (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Henna article external link

I restored the external link you removed from the Henna article because the link was allowed severla years ago after some discussion with other Wikipedia editors who agreed that the site is, in fact, non-commercial, devoted to information, research and discussion on henna and related topics. The site is owned by Wikipedia member 1hennaphd, who is a PhD candidate in geography at Kent State University, working on a dissertation on the development of the worldwide spread of henna usage since the 1990s. She did an extensive rewrite of the Wikipedia henna article in 2006. She included the link to hennapage.com because the site contains articles based on her own research and links to scholarly, technical, medical and scientific writing on henna and related subjects that go far beyond the limitations of the Wikipedia article. 1hennaphd owns a henna distribution business but on hennapage.com, aside from the links in the site header which includes text links to her commercial sites, there is no advertising, no solicitation to purchase any product or service or any commercial promotion expressed or implied in any of the articles.

I hope that you will take all of the above into consideration and let the link remain a part of the henna article. 49oxen (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Whitney Page Deletion (Please Undelete)

I created the Article on this Person today, and have done nothing wrong, please could you reconsider reopening this page, as many people are great fans; The article is based on a viral superstar, who is high success, and many people would be in fascination to see a wikipedia page on him, He much deserves a page as he has a remarkable story. I was finished completely editing, and was sat down typing and retyping for 6.5 hours; I'm at home, not much to do. 6.5 Hours has felt forever, I'm tired, worked hard, learned how to make articles, done everything I've been asked of, just all I'm asking you to do, is to do what's right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris380 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks!

For sorting out the dogo argentino page and related matters! CheesyBiscuit (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I'm baffled by some of the IPs complaints...removing a bunch of poorly-related "See alsos" is rascist?!?! OK. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol - missed that bit! CheesyBiscuit (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

HELP!!!!!!!

i need help can u help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedeathking (talk • contribs) 06:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

re: Hello

Hello, Ohnoitsjamie. You have new messages at Roger Davies's talk page.
Message added 17:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Alternative text for images

Hi,

Alt text for images is required to comply with United States law on people with disabilities. Wikipedia requires alt text for Featured articles and soon will require it for all articles. See Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. So if you see alt text that you do not like, please fix it rather than revert it whole sale. It is a lot of work to do and it is very discouraging to see efforts to aid the blind and others using screen readers or who do not download images reverted summarily with no attempt to fix it. Thank you, Tuxedo junction (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, my mistake. I didn't realize what you were doing; at first glance, it appeared that you were adding lengthy POV captions to photos, didn't catch the "alt" tag. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

RAID 1

I think you need edit this page to be clear that RAID 1 ISNT a form of backup ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.224.167.170 (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to observe WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A user saves data A,B,C,D onto a RAID 1 array, distributing it to both drives. User then mistakenly deletes data B. RAID duplicates delete onto both drives. Wheres the backup of B ? I just think it may seem unclear to some people, giving them the idea that RAID 1 will backup data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.224.167.170 (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The article never states that RAID 1 provides backup, only disk error fault tolerance. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does, Quoting....

RAID 1

RAID 1 mirrors the contents of the disks, making a form of 1:1 ratio realtime backup. The contents of each disk in the array are identical to that of every other disk in the array. A RAID 1 array requires a minimum of two drives.

Im only trying to help in the accuracy of the document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.224.167.170 (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As I just said, it's already accurate. We don't need to slap warning labels on everything. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

SEO article link

On the SEO article, i placed a link concerning on the part that describes new pagerank sculpting technique by using nofollow. I see that i has been removed. Personaly i think it is a 100% relevant and accurate link. Additionaly the wikipedia article has included part of the text of blog but without placing a reference. Maybe it worths a revision by you to check it out, nevertheless if you don't choose to restore it, i will not add it back.

cheers ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.38.147.98 (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Given your IP addresses's history, you may want to read our WP:COI policy, for starters. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 09:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Chatroulette Language Links

those links which you added , do not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camoka4 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

With the exception of ht and hr, all of those do indeed exist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Image

Based on your edit summary, any thoughts would be appreciated: Talk:Teabagging#Image (newer one) Cptnono (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

More link spam from User:Camdic

I've just reverted some more link spam from User:Camdic at Avicenna: see diff here. I noticed you had put a final warning on his talk page for this but I don't know how to go about reporting someone for this. Could you do so on my behalf or else give me a clue how to do so myself?

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

One Billion Minds

Hi Jamie, can you please explain why you deleted an article on One Billion Minds? Please let us know how we can improve it Sanjukt (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It was blatant advertising, with an obvious conflict of interest issue. Also see WP:CORP. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Reconsideration of my "testing" in Manila article

As per WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Aticle size, I did a better version but considered it as experimental. You can view the Manila talk page and see my log. The article needs to be rewritten to meet the criteria for Wikipedia. Thank you. --DragosteaDinTei 15:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The version you are restoring makes no sense. I removed the excess history that that the IP keeps re-adding. If you continue to revert to a version with an opening that makes no sense, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Trout

I gratefully accept the trout-slapping award. It's not just for me, though, it's for my Mom and Dad, my first infant school teacher who set me on the road to randomly blocking admins, my Sunday school teacher when I was nine, the homeless person I saw on the street who inspired me on that cold night in February [pause to wipe away tears]. The whole crew deserve this award as I couldn't have done it without them [more tears]...I'd like to say [becomes incoherent and is led away from the stage by Billy Crystal ]. I did remember to remove the autoblock as well, though. Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 07:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Circumcision article

Thank you Jamie for your concern. I am committed to removing bias as well, what would you suggest as a replacement for my statement? Thank you very much.

-Doctor of Math —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor of Math (talk • contribs) 03:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources and WP:NPOV. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:38, 6 April 2010

(UTC)

Re-request Ayurveda Link inclusion

Hiya Jamie, Ive read the guidelines, please re check my site, I feel the external link is valid, (my site is a lot better content etc, and i feel it contributes!, If you dont feel that way please at least check out the site, before deleting the link a second time, Many Thanks , Humbly yours Brian Brian Colborne (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not, per WP:EL and WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi this is me. I will use the sandbox from now on thanks.Larrybird333 (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Tech pump revert

Why did you make the revert [15]? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Village Pump Queston

I asked a question on the technical page and you erased it. Why? I was refered to the Pump page by Tnxman307, who suggested I ask there after trying on the Help page. Grand Bison (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Read the exchange immediately above this one. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks....sorry I'm new and felt bitten. Grand Bison (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies! It's one of the downsides of a 10" screen and keyboard. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You accidentally deleted the reply to my post in [16]. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Rainbow Bridge (pets) edits on April 9 2010

You recently reversed edits I made to the Rainbow Bridge (pets) page. I edited a link that you have now left without any details in the External Links section (I see you fixed the [1] link now). Anyway, I still feel the link I added is completely relevant and non-commercial. Please reconsider.

Ps. I'm unfamiliar with editing the talk pages, so I hope I got it right this time by putting it at the bottom of the page.

Thanks, MsKirie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.215.194.135 (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Though the link isn't commercial, we don't need to start a collection of tribute links there. See WP:NOT. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for rolling back the vandalism to my user page. Flatscan (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference re-inclusion for Cloud_computing#Hybrid_cloud

you deleted a reference to an article about Hybrid Hosting, This is a reference to an article it's not spamming! please roll it back for this section: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Cloud_computing#Hybrid_cloud== —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabeez (talk • contribs) 17:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not rolling back anything. If you add spam links to your review site again, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have contributed in wikipedia about Hybrid Hosting which wasn't mentioned before and I got the reference from my site blog, so a link as a reference should be included, and that doesn't conflict with wiki guidelines, if you think ti does you have to prove it. Is it mentioned anywhere that you can not cite from reviews site blog??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabeez (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In addition to conflict of interest issues, review blogs do not meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines, period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed those, and I think the article doesn't have any conflict of interest! the article is only talking about Hybrid Hosting without any specific reviews about any web hosts. It's a pure technical guidance article written by experts! So it's NOT a reviews blog it's a separate section that had pure technical articles! Nabeez (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabeez (talk • contribs) 19:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No, for the reasons already mentioned. There's nothing further to say. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Why then you are not deleting citation # 18 on the same page: #18 ^ Cloud Computing Savings – Real or Imaginary?, it's the same concept, commercial site with a blog and the citation is from a blog post! This should be considered as a conflict of interest then! If you don't want to roll back my citation then you have to be fair and apply this to everyone! OR be fair and get back my citation! If you are not willing to revisit this issue I would want to escalate it! Nabeez (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Crime in Houston

I don't see where to put, so I am putting it here. I did not state any opinions on the Houston page. That is factually incorrect. I cited a Times-Picayune newspaper article. Facts cited: Houston's homicide wave began before Katrian. Houston recorded 225 homicides in the months before Katrian. Simple math tells you they were recording an average 28.125 homicides a month. They were on pace for 337 homicides that years. These facts are all verified in the newspaper article I cited. It is a fact that Houston gangs were targeting New Orleanians in the SW part of Houston. That's a fact. Those are facts. It is a fact that a false rape claim was made against New Orleanians and caused an anti-New Orleans hysteria in Houston. Those are facts. And here's one last fact: by deleting those facts you are promoting anti-New Orleans bigotry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.217.202.107 (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

See our policies on original research and synth. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that says the Times-Picayune is not a legitimate resource. Could you explain?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.217.202.107 (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I added a reference to the article's counterargument in neutral language, unlike the language used in your version. See changes here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate that you added reference to the Times-Picayune article, I still believe that the article, as stated, is dangerous. It still lends voice to those who are scapegoating the New Orleanians in Houston. The facts that I cited from the T-P article is extremely relevant to the scapegoating nature of the Houston article at this point. Therefore, the facts I cited should remain in the article, unless you are going to likewise remove the scapegoating nature of the article on Houston that currently exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.217.202.107 (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's job to judge. The Houston Police's interpretation is presented, along with the Times-Picayune's opinion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

See, there you go again with this "opinion" nonsense. That is not an editorial by the Times-Picayune. That is all fact. And it may not be Wikipedia's job to judge, but it should owe something to the truth. HPD is doing what all public officials and offices do--- protecting themselves politically by pointing the finger elsewhere. The Times-Picayune is doing what newspapers do, report facts. Now, while I suppose that in wiki's zeal for being "fair and balanced" you may not have any problem with balancing the truth with a lie, the article, as you've edited it is not even balanced, as it does not take into account the many facts the T-P article cites. The fact that 19 of Houston's homicide victims that year were New Orleanians --- they were victims ---A FACT. The fact, that Houstonians went to such lengths to blame New Orleanians for their problems that they believed false allegations against New Orleanians and spread hysteria against them, only to mumble under their breaths later that they were wrong. The FACT that New Orleanians were being railed against as a major threat to Houston by local businesses who called them Katricians, as part of this hysteria. http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/18/nation/na-guns18The FACT that gangs in SW Houston targeted New Orleanians. None of these FACTS are in the Houston article. They all belong there since the article claims that New Orleanians are at fault for Houstons problems. You also conveniently left out that Houston experienced 225 murders before Katrina even ocurred. These are NOT opinions. These are facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.217.202.107 (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You're interpretation of "fact" is not in line with WP:Verifiability, WP:SYNTH, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:NPOV. I suggest you spend some time reading those policies. I've already added some balance to the crime section, including two sources (one you found, one I found myself) that cast doubt on the evacuees role in the crime increase. Your interpretation of why the Houston Police said what they did is an interpretation (i.e., WP:SYNTH). The fact that the Houston Police said it is well-documented. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Your last contribution was mostly OK, though I toned town the language a bit (calling it a "myth" is making a judgement on an issue that is contested; better to call it an "assertion" or something similar). I appreciate your efforts to bring more balance to the section; the current version is more neutral and balanced than the previous version. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User:ZincBelief, The game (mind game)

Hi,

I see you dealt with ZincBelief (talk · contribs) a couple of years ago on The game (mind game). Looks like this editor has decided to become active on that article again. His edit summaries don't suggest it's going to be any more productive this time around. Any suggestions? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to help, you'd probably be better off posting at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts to get some uninvolved input. My patience levels aren't where they used to be, and I'd prefer to avoid the drama associated with that ridiculous article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No probs. I prefer to avoid the centralised boards (locii for drama as they are) in the first instance, but I can understand your reluctance in this case. :) Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Valley Entertainment Monthly

There are now at least three links and references directly to VEM in the article now. You noted when voting "delete" that there were none, when in fact the Flipside Magazine article was there from the onset. In light of this, you may want to consider changing your vote as the article has been updated with the information you cited as being missing. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

I'm not changing my !vote, as I still don't see any non-trivial coverage in a reliable source (i.e., as Flipside Magazine does not appear to be notable, I fail to see how it can lend credence to VEM's notability).OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Labrador Retriever External Link

Have you even read what an external link is? Let me help you:

Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

The link I posted is (1) on-topic and (2) cannot be added to the article because of copyright laws. The link will be added back as it is not link spamming, however, it is adding relevant information to the topic. Let me know when you revert or I can add the link back.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Myndp2510 (talk • contribs)

I am very familiar with the external link policy. I'm also familar with WP:COI, which apparently you are not. If you continue to add the links, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest? That is my area of expertise and have given lectures regarding related topics. So by my understanding, having a doctor cite a related link to his publishing in a medical journal about a recent Enteroplasty would be a conflict of interest? Please explain how the link I posted does not provide a benefit to the reader? If you can provide a valid reason, then I will drop this issue.

See the blurb at the top of my talk page, which explains our policies on external links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)