Jamie,

Thanks for your note. I did not thinking adding a link to informational sites was a bad thing. I had run across a series of articles I thought would be useful at the site. Also I noticed the guineapigsclub.com link which is far more commercial and less informative about the GP than the ones I linked too at http://www.bestpetarticles.com/guinea-pigs/ You'll see they are unique and offer a lot of good information for those looking to care for a GP. I would think the gpclub site would be more in the lines to your stated policy than those of the site I recommended. Again thanks for the note, I'd like to see it change, but understand a site preference/resource conflict.

• Note: I see the other site was removed. I did not mean to cause any conflict with Chubbles if one occured by my actions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.227.114.171 (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

br —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.227.114.171 (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, 212.227.114.171 is an open proxy. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a happy Birthday message to you, Ohnoitsjamie, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

• FROM YOUR FRIEND:

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! And only 28 minutes into it! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Birthday	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Ohnoitsjamie/archive11 a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!

--Nadir D Steinmetz 11:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't much care for being accused of "blanking" or other vandalism, especially when non-notable content is removed from Wikipedia on an hourly basis. I had no idea that some people take so seriously content related to their little hobby, but harassing a disagreeing editor with "warnings" does not seem to be what Wikipedia is about. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - there's been a not-quite-open-and-fair dispute going on at the Pilates page regarding the External Links section, which you may want to take a look at, since part of it took up your time, unfortunately. You probably noticed that a link to a webpage at thinkpilates.com suddenly showed up earlier today on many unrelated Wikipedia pages, prompting your attention to remove them as spam, as indeed they were. But someone (or a group), it seems, is determined to keep that particular link off the Pilates page, without discussing, and also, by resorting to malicious impersonation, probably to ensure that that link and possibly the domain is blacklisted at WP. Please see Talk:Pilates#External_Links for the discussion. BTW, the domain is not mine, I simply found it as a useful source of information. Nonlinear149 (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put more succinctly - someone is doing malicious Sock_puppet actions and gaming the system to exclude a link from the Pilates page, instead of engaging in open discussion. Nonlinear149 (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must ask why you filed a Wikiquette alert about an editor that you were in a dispute with, and then blocked them. It would seem to me that this may constitute a breach of your responsibility as an administrator. At the very least, you should have involved an impartial administrator. Is there something I am missing here? I am especially concerned because this appears to be the second such block involving questionable circumstances on this editor. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't file any such alert. I commented on the alert. Paul repeatedly removed content from multiple pages. There were several editors objecting to the removal, and Paul failed to cite any policy for removing it. (One editor filed a mediation request, which Paul refused to particupate in). I stepped in and supported inclusion of the content. You should examine Paul's recent edits and discussion on the Wachovia Spectrum talk page before jumping to conclusions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drat! I was just coming back over to redact this ..... you are right, I went back and was rechecking the alert, and you sure as heck did not. I was 100% wrong on that.

But now that you mention it .... what I was seeing him doing was removing unrefenced material. From my reading policy, if it is unreferenced, doesn't that make it fair game for deletion (even if there are a lot of editors claiming it should be there)? Admittadly, he was myabe being a little aggressive, but I never saw the harm in being aggressive with editing. If he was removing referenced material, then it certainly should have been brought to the Talk Page regarding how legit the source was. Am I misinterpreting this? LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the material that he's removed was referenced. If his interest was really removing unreferenced material, there was plenty more material that could've been removed. Rather, it's obvious that he's on a campaign to remove any references to pro wrestling from articles, apparently because he doesn't like wrestling. I don't care for wrestling myself, but I acknowledge that it's a notable form of entertainment. I would object to wrestling (or any other entertainment/sport) having a lot of excess cruft on any given page, but that's certainly not the case at the Spectrum article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a sockpuppet of banned editor User:Chadbryant, all the more reason not to unblock. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in conclusion, I think that pretty much answers all of the questions that I had ..... thank you for putting up with me and my doubts. Happy editing! LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I realize it wasn't a simple case (until recently). Checks, balances, second/third opinions are always good. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if you would be willing to resolve a dispute on Lotus Esprit. The argument/disagreement arose over a series of external links that a user added, I removed, he added back in, I removed them again and started a discussion on the talk page of the article. The primary people involved are myself and Greglocock on the side of removing the links and DanBasterfield for keeping them. Dan does not appear to have any COI. The discussion has gone on for quite a while and has gotten too out of hand for any of us to decide; that is why we need a third party (and an administrator) to come in and resolve this dispute. If you would be willing to help us out, we would all appreciate it because, as I said, none of us have been able to come to a consensus.

Thank you, Zach4636 (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

72.241.252.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hi. You blocked 72.241.252.97 about an hour ago for vandalism. This IP doesn't seem to have edited lately and the last few days and the most recent edits seem to be in good faith. You don't appear to be editing right now so I've gone ahead and been bold and removed the block under the assumption that it was an accidental block and that you meant to hit a different IP. If I guessed wrong, please feel free to slap me with a wet WP:TROUT and reinstate the block. Thanks. --B (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think that was a mistake. I'm usually good about double-checking AIV reports, but it looks like I erred on this one. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie:

I'm sure the people who created this category intended it to include celebs who had been previously incarcerated and no longer are.

But that's not what it says. The label put on the Hilton article and a lot of others is "Incarcerated Celebrity", the normal meaning of which is a celebrity currently in jail.

Since this is not true of Ms Hilton (as of a few minutes ago; I checked the news) and possibly not of anyone else in the category either, it is a false label. IMO, it should not be there as it violates the BLP policy.

Can I get some feedback on this please?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the category name is a little ambiguous...it might make more sense to split it into two categories; one for folks who have spent some time in jail (which would probably cover most of those in the category, as far as I can tell) and one for current. I'll look into that. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In the meantime, I am going to remove the tag and see what happens. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going ahead on this. Wanderer57 (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a comment in the Cat for Discussion: "Comment. And how is this defining? Since they are celebrities they are already notable."

I don't understand this, especially the use of the word "defining". Can you explain what it is likely to mean? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they mean that the word "Celebrity" is sort of redundant, since any subject with an article here should already be notable. I'm not sure if everyone considers "celebrity" to be synonymous with "notable person," though. Maybe "celebrity" could be replaced with "people" or "persons" to satisfy that quibble. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then. ALright, now it's timme to kick some admin ass!!!

...Did I say that out loud? Wuh-wait. What're you doing with the bloock button?! AIEEEE!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lantern Oil (talk • contribs) 07:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Reversion
		For reverting so many unhelpful edits and vandalism on Wikipedia I User Swirlex award you this Barnstar.

Thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please took article in the "puppy" this very sad picture. I can not, article "Puppy" partially protected from editing. File:Puppy at musorke.jpg, this photo. Poor dvornyazhka is needed in the article. Thank you. More interesting to me - how many times thy personal page has been corrupted Vandals paint? 92.113.135.214 (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am from the Rissian Wikipedia. The the maximum number of cases of vandalism edits there is 42 on the user page Обсуждение участника:AndyVolykhov↔ 92.113.135.214 (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry for vandalizing your page, i was just trying to do something cute for my gf and i's anniversary. didn't mean to disturb. won't happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggy3985 (talk • contribs) 22:36, February 10, 2008

Well, there's novel idea. Next time I need to celebrate someone's anniversary or birthday, maybe I'll vandalize Jimbo's page. :) Enigma (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohnoitsjaimie, I am trying to update my newest hobby of home automation, and I put a page up, with content that I researched and am working on, but you took it down. I applaud your swiftness to keep the wiki clean, but on this one can you let me know what I did wrong, and I will address it. Thanks in advance for your time Scrltspdr (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Smarthome was deleted because (1) there was no evidence provided that the company met WP:CORP notability standards, (2) it read like an advertisement, and (3) it had been deleted numerous other times for the same reason. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohnoitsjaimie, Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Pawlenty, you pulled my edit for citing blogs. Blogs are frequently the medium of choice for independent journalists. Douglas Hester is a local independent journalist, with a history of covering the "uncomfortable" cases, including Tim Pawlenty's broken campaign promises. Where do you draw the line to decide on reliability?

princewally (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2008 (CST)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Enigma (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Joel Rosenberg is an established expert in the field whose work in the field has been published by reliable third-party publications. I don't know Douglas Hester's work as well, but the existence of two independent sources should tend to confirm the reliability of both. I've started a discussion over the inclusion of this issue on the Talk:Tim Pawlenty page. --jdege (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion

By Step III, there's an extra space after "Open the..." Enigma (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - just to let you know that I've emailed you the sources for the Miss Alabama USA article. I'm hoping you'll revert it back... I've used up my 3 for the moment :P PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sending me the info. I think it's premature to revert it back, though, pending input from other users. It's always wise to be cautious when dealing with potential WP:BLP issues. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My username is spider341. I am relatively new to wikipedia. Do you have any tips? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spider341 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You talk page now has a Wikipedia introduction template, which contains plenty of good info to get you started. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie:

From first edit to an indef block in 19 minutes. Would that be a record?

Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've indef blocked obvious socks within seconds of their first edit. Other users manage to get a "bv" (blatant") and final warning within a few minutes. Hopefully, such swiftness illustrates the futility of the endeavor. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hey, hey! I'm all curious now. Links please! :) Enigma (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an obvious sock that was blocked 3 minutes after creation. That's probably the fastest in recent history that I can think of. In non-sock cases, I usually give at least two or three warnings (when it's blatant), unless the user starts making malicious moves or appears to be running a script (like the Squidward vandal, who at one time was able to use a script on open proxies to hit lots of pages quickly). In those cases, a quick block saves you from having to clean up a lot of crap. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added an explanation why the text on ReplicaNet is not a copyvio on Talk:ReplicaNet (the text is public domain) so please undo your delete so the article can be improved. Fnagaton 09:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright issue was only one problem. There was no indication how the subject met WP:Notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK so since the copyright is not a problem please restore the article, since it doesn't meet the criteria for copyvio speedy deletion. Then I'll be able to add some extra references, although there were at least three reliable sources (plus at least one wikilink from another page) which would tend to meet the notability requirements. Fnagaton 15:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you list the sources here first, I'll restore the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sector 13 article has the wikilink meaning someone thought it notable enough to add the link, the ReplicaNet article was created sometime after that edit to add content for the link. Then there are these extra references such as this review which comes from GameDev which is a reliable source since it has editorial control of reviews. This PDF which lists ReplicaNet as one of the products used by Universal Combat A World Apart. Then in December 2004 ReplicaNet was a "frontline award finalist" in Game Developer (magazine) (subscription need) for which I can supply a photograph if you need it. From the same company that publishes the magazine is this reference and there are many more references from the same website in their news section. Then from Bungie's news section, the creators of Marathon and Halo 1/2/3, include ReplicaNet in this news article. All of these references could be internally wikilined back to their respective pages. These combined with the other references already in the article mean it passes WP:Notability. Fnagaton 16:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll restore it. Thanks for your patience. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring it. As you suggest on my talk page I find time to flesh out the article a bit more and add some background about the subject. Fnagaton 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. You can check out Category:Game_engines for a list of other articles that might give you some ideas (though a brief survey I did suggest that some of these articles need works as well). M.U.G.E.N. appears to be reasonably developed (though possibly too long). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling at a thread often makes other threads unravel. Checking articles in the same category and finding others that need work is a lot like this. :) Fnagaton 18:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there is never a shortage of work to be done here. Thanks again for your patience and courtesy. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohnoitsjamie how do you make a user page?

--Spider341 (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohnoitsjamie how do I learn this editing language. I am only familiar so far by editing pages how to make a hyperlink to another article, and to do this

(see below where i did the underline thing on my username spider341)

but i dont know any more. Do you have any ideas on how I could learn. is it ok if I copy and paste stuff from people like i did with the heart from somebody's editing page?

thank you --Spider341 (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

❤ happy post-by-one-day valentines day

how do you make your own entry

--Spider341 (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the official band profile. How is it not official? Have you even followed the link? Zazaban (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have. The site is not operated or official sanctioned by the band, so it's not official. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the band has a profile there. I have linked to said profile. Or, more correctly, a list with it at the top, as the profile doesn't have the genre right on it. Many bands have a MySpace profile linked, and they don't operate MySpace. Zazaban (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace is notable. VampireFreaks is not. Please stop adding the link. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still the band's profile, and thus the info is coming directly from the band. The site also has over 1 Million members, and has profiles for Nine Inch Nails, Rammstein, and Cradle of Filth. It cannot just be written off. Zazaban (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be blocked? What have I done? This is an edit dispute, not vandalism, I have not broken the 3RR. What could I be blocked for? Zazaban (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article for the site was deleted as non-notable, so I'd say it already has been written off. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted over a AFD for two years prior to the deletion. The article that the original AFD was about was about a non-notable court case involving the site. Frankly, I found the deletion to be absurd. Zazaban (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an edit dispute. You are adding a link that violates WP:EL. A policy violation is not an edit dispute. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the band's official profile, so I fail to see how it is irrelevant. If we take it that directly, all links to MySpace on various band articles have to be deleted as well. Zazaban (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing official about it, and the site is non-notable. Period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how it is not official. It is a profile created by the band. That's about as official as it gets. Zazaban (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the band's official site, and the site is non-notable. I don't see any evidence that the profile was created by MM either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence that it's MySpace page was created by it either for that matter. Also, I disagree that the site is non-notable. The article for the site was determined to be okay to re-create if it's neutral and sourced. Zazaban (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is created that survives AfD (which it would certainly be sent to), the link would be acceptable. As for now, there is no evidence that it is a notable site. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, that's fair. Can we agree that it's the band's profile and not an impostor, or should I not try? Zazaban (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you restore obvious vandalism at Coat of arms of Egypt? AnonMoos (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to. I'll check it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I didn't realize there were two vandals doing the same thing. I blocked one indef, and I see you've given the other a final warning (I also deleted the vandalism image). Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my page. (I didn't realize it until now.) --Nlu (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Rabbit link you reverted - previous edit added a link, which was discussed on the discussion page the same as mine was. Happy for link to be removed, so long as this policy is applied consistently.

There was no consensus on the talk page to include it, only your suggestion. Please don't add it again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe you made a mistake here: [1]? I'll let you self-revert if you want. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. Fixed. Thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jamie. Once again I contact you for advice. I am writing a new page on my grandfather, a pioneer of the Mexican military aviation; The article is not yet life in Wiki as am in the late research phase. And I have a few images I want to load to Wiki Commons but the first one I did got tagged for deletion says I am not providing the correct licence info; I released it to public domain which I think is fair. I read a lot of links related to it and am more confused than in the begining. The image in question is Image:C-3B Stearman.jpg and I have about 5 more to come of my grandfather. Some more Images of my grandfather I obtained throught the Mexican public archives, and Mexico's Department of Public information - National Defense. After hours trying to understand the licence policies, I am at loss of what need to be done, how to edit the file, and what to do with the next images I have to share. I will appreciate any help you may be kind to share. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just got in tonight from a trip, when I get caught up with work, I'll look into it. Thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie. How do I add the Veiled Chameleon picture I've uploaded to the Veiled Chameleon Wikipedia page? P.S. Sorry. I made a mistake on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veiled_Chameleon#External_links billybizkit (talk) 9:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I just reported the vandal that's been getting your userpage a lot to ARV. Enigma ^msg! 06:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block. Also a definite sockpuppet account, from what I'm seeing. Enigma ^msg! 06:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just got back in town from a trip to Amsterdam and Belgium, forgot to put up a Wikibreak notice. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you reverted [2] this section.I think too its not relevant but what are your thoughts about this argument, please help us with your knowledge.[3].Thank you.--Thispoems (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Molossia was never in Albania nor is it now.The part of Epirus that is now in

Albania is part of Chaonia which is irrelevant to that article.See appropriate article and sources to that effect.It was not a good faith effort since the sources were there that pointed this out eloquently and to the point.Megistias (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Don't Vandalize The Kobe Bryant page! The "Sexual Assault" case has nothing to do with Kobe's "Basketball career". Dwilso (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the individual, not one specific aspect of the individuals life. Please do not remove verifiable content. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Assualt has nothing to do with basketball, and besides I don't want my kids to see that Crap stuff! Therfore, I will be taking this matter up with WIKIPEDIA Managers.. Thank you!!! Dwilso (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am an admin. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism" for writing in something truthful that you disagree with. LMAO, liar.

Your next block will be longer than 24 hours. Please follow Wikipedia policies, including those on civility. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burgz33 continues to Wikistalk via IP socks and the odd user account - the latest being User:D o Gizzle . I've recently reverted a bunch of edits stalking User:Yankees76) and vandalism (the latest being a senseless redirect of Couronne to a page that does not even mention the term, and subsequent posturing on Yankees76's talk page). I feel my next move will be to file an abuse report. What is your experience with this process in the past (if any). Or would you suggest moving towards an outright ban of the user? Right now there are well over 80 socks and IP's that have used by this vandal. Let me know what you think. --Quartet 22:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is the edit i did on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals vandalism. PETA is a terrorist group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayanddoubleyou (talk • contribs) 23:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have posted the proposed picture of a champion chihuahua on the talk page of the article. I was wanting your opinion of the picture before I go ahead replacing any existing images as it seems the issue of which image to use has been a very contetious issue. Was just hoping when you have a minute or to that you would take a look and give me your opinion. Thanks and if there's any way I can help with improving the article on chihuahuas in any way do let me know as I have many great resources available. Crazy-dancing (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You just recently deleted an external link of mine, which is fine because it appears to have violated Wikipedia guidelines. I use this resource extensively, and I don't want to abuse the system. I have added another external link for a different article The Science of Getting Rich on its dicussion page, which I think is the proper protocol? Could you perhaps take a look at it, under the heading "Possible External Link," and let me know if it would be approved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WongDarlar (talk • contribs) 15:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How [4] is spam? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Furthermore, the user adding the link is the webmaster of the site. Please don't revert it again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello You removed important links on the Iranian Oil Bourse page... The articles are listed in google news, and I felt they were important to the events... They were not "spam articles" and if you felt, just because I added two from the same source, that they were spam... you should have just removed one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decoyjames (talk • contribs) 20:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a conflict of interest to add links to your own site, especially a blog, which in most cases in not considered to be a reliable source. Please don't do it again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie... It is not a blog, It is a news site... Yes it uses a blog code... but so does many news sites. We are listed on google news... and are considered a reliable source.... What I add is extremely relevant to the article... I do not just go add my links on every page I can.... Please revert all back, except for the John McCain one... I understand that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decoyjames (talk • contribs) 03:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... and it is not even my site! I write for it... occasionally... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decoyjames (talk • contribs) 03:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it's a reliable source. It's a blog. I won't revert any of them, and I advise you not to add any more. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie, I noticed that you recently reverted edits to the Youngstown, Ohio, article that established a link to the Metro Monthly Web site. I am aware that Wikipedia has a strict policy against creating links to blogs. Although I am not very familiar with the Web site in question, I can tell you that The Metro Monthly is regarded as a reputable news and feature publication. Respectfully, -- twelsht (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reputable or not, we don't tolerate single-purpose accounts whose only purpose is to canvass links to any publication, such as this account. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks, -- twelsht (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey, 86.131.87.242 is looking for a block apparently. I reverted its vandalism to your userpage. Enigma ^msg! 17:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If he keeps looking, I'll make sure he finds one. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend User:Darkchaotix get the indef block before it creates even more damage. How "leave messages at bottom of the page" is hard to understand I'll never know. Enigma ^msg! 00:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is microns away from flew too close to the sun. Thanks for the reverts. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The home inspection wiki meets the guidelines for adding links; at the very least, it is certainly not spam. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at it lately? There's very little content, and it's currently overrun with Japanese spam. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty to lengthen you 24 our block of user:Chlipala to 1 month because of the totally incivil communication coming from this editor, and his spamming. Guess I should let you know, and that it is fine with you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite fine with me. I glanced at some of the somewhat incomprehensible rants on the user's talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You gave this user a permanent block for two edit, one to a talk page. I think people might consider that harsh, unless you have reason to think they are a returning vandal. Any comments? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an obvious sockpuppet. Check out the recent history of Evolution. I block socks on sight, as quickly as possible. I'm not about to give warnings. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. Good catch. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Knott, I think, is acting one-sided, and making judgements based on personal, and not professional, opinions. To me, she's acting like a childish human being, and I have not called Thegingerone any names, but I have been appaulled by the libeling she has given me. Thegingerone, however, has labelled me as acting insane, and I think Ms. Knott is showing bias support towards her. Also, when a person denies you certain rights because of race, do you just let the person get away with it? Kevin j (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue in this way, you will be blocked for being disruptive. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello. as only 'decoration', there's really no rationale for them being there, and there's no provision for it's inclusion any of the infobox guidelines whatsoever. --emerson7 17:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there's no reason to exclude them either. We "decorate" userboxes with flags, so why not Nobel awards (which is arguably one of most notable awards in the world).

I'd suggest starting a discussion and getting some consensus as to whether or not their appropriate for userboxes versus widescale deletion (if you click on the image itself, you'll see it's used on a large number of bios). Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually, we are not supposed to decorate with flags and similar items per wp:flagcruft. --emerson7 17:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of that policy is that flags aren't to be used to indicate birth and death locations or to be used throughout the article. I don't see where it says that they can't be used to indicate nationality/citizenship. On the other hand, I can understand your concern that we could go down a slippery slope to where infoboxes are cluttered with all sorts of images. As I noted on your talk page, I started a new topic at the Infobox project discussion page. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please read the message which I put on the talk page of splash and the Hexer - both wiki.en sysop - and perhaps include (or restore) what I wrote about the origin of the easter bunny ! Christophe Neff (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haved tried to include the information without reverting your edits, I think its okay now ! Christophe Neff (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what you added was already in the article. Furthermore, an article's talk page does not qualify as a source. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree at all, concerning the origin in Alsace nothing is in the article - and I think you should include ! Christophe Neff (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to include it, you must source it properly. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

isn't wiki.de a proper source - and the Rheinpfalz Artikel - or isn't ? Christophe Neff (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated in WP:Verifiability, other English and other Wikipedias are not to be used as sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now restored the text, - named the Rheinpfalzartikel as source - and deleted wiki.de as source. Christophe Neff (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the text, because as I mentioned before, it's redundant to material found later on in the article. Please refer to WP:REFERENCE as to how to properly create a reference. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as a sysop you have the power to do want you want, - but I think you abuse - I have checked all the sources and citations in the article - and really the have not very much to do with the content of the article - but the source I cited has do with it. I will not gone on - I give up ! yours Christophe Neff (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read WP:REFERENCE+ WP:Verifiability carefully - and I can not understand why you d' ont accept the Rheinpfalz as reference - its not more or less a good or bad reference as the others in the article. Christophe Neff (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message on the talkpage of the easter bunny concerning your reverts - for the rest - i will not make not more edits concerning the Easter Bunny. Christophe Neff (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your block of Pawatch, but both versions were horrible from a NPOV standpoint, and Pawatch at least had BLP on his side, even if he didn't realize that as a new editor. --Onorem♠Dil 23:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Norman is a pretty well-known and long-standing writer for the P-G (I didn't even realize it was Norman's piece until your comment here. Funny thing is that I've met Tony Norman before; very cool guy, we shared the same favorite watering hole). The impact of Wheatley's criminal record to the campaign is pretty well-known, so I don't see any BLP issues there. I'm still don't see obvious POV problems with the older version; it looked to be pretty much the same info that was in the Trib article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This has often been interpreted by courts to mean felonies." - Not in any way supported by the ref that I can see.

"Despite the revelations" - Wording that suggests that people should have reacted differently to the revelations.

"While Wheatley's past conviction could have yet prevented him from taking office, no challenges were filed and he ultimately obtained an expungement of his conviction in 2003, clearing his record." - Wording suggesting that a challenge would have prevented the expungement, and the source is nothing but speculation on whether or not Wheatley's case would also be affected by an unrelated decison about theft being an "infamous crime" for purposes of disqualification from holding office.

If others agree that the provided sources are adequate, I won't edit war over it. I don't agree with Pawatch's forceful method of whitewashing, and I strongly disagree with Montco calling the edits vandalism. --Onorem♠Dil 00:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose the wording about the felonies is a stretch. I don't object to the "despite the revaluations" part; the news story said essentially that the past convictions issue hurt the campaign, but that he won anyway, which to my reading fits with the word "despite." The last sentence you mention is bordering on OR, and as such could be safely discarded. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that good sources could be found to support most of the commentary. I just don't agree that what was there was adequate, and I think that if the opening was presented from a more NPOV, the "despite" part would be more acceptable in context. (although that line was only referenced to the results) Anyway, I'm not too worried about it, and I'll defer to your better judgement and familiarity to the issue. --Onorem♠Dil 00:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did a partial restore, attempting to eliminate aspects of the wording that were questionable. Let me know what you think. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and added a Supreme Court decision which pretty explicitly cites the Commonwealth v Shaver decision (the original decision which considered felonies to be an 'infamous crime' under the State Constitution, although it would have been nice for Onorem to discuss concerns with me. This is extremely frustrating. I am very nearly the only person who even watches these articles and I have people attacking democrats and republicans on a semi regular basis. You should see the crap I put up with on Bruce Castor Jim Matthews and Tom Corbett. And I know the idiots that are behind that. Then one day I find this [5] which includes a near verbatim inclusion of the Representative's personal bio [6]. After taking a couple of hours to re-write it the best I can, I get User:Change2579 and User:Pawatch who decide that they are going to cut and paste the guys bio back into the page. After finally dispatching one of them, I now have another editor who doesn't like how I wrote it so he accuses me of my own POV and deletes the material without even a word of commentary to me. If you don't think repeatedly replacing sourced information with pure copyvio off the subject's own website does not constitute vandalism, then I would certainly like to know what is. At some point I should just give up and nominate the article for a CSD G12 which would take care of it once and for all. In any case, Jamie, thanks for the help you have given. Montco (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political bio's are particularly tricky as far as nailing down an NPOV version that everyone is happy with, and we always have to be wary of WP:BLP. That said, Montco's recent revisions look fine to me. From what I understand (I haven't lived in Pgh for a long time, so I'm not up-to-date on current politics), the conviction did factor notably into the campaign, though his victory made it clear that he retained enough popularity in his district (or everyone really didn't like the other guy, I guess that's speculation). I'm not sure that I'd characterize Pawatch's contributions as simple vandalism (though they certainly violated policy, and merited warnings and the subsequent block). I would've warned using the {{uw-npov1}}, {{uw-npov2}}, etc. templates personally. If Pawatch (or anyone else) comes back in an attempt to completely "sanitize" the article, feel free to post a note here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly posting copyvio information is considered vandalism so I go with what I have to work with. Montco (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add some relevant, pertinent information about the de-listing of Greater Yellowstone and Northern Rockies wolves to the gray wolf entry, but it was deleted. The de-listing is verifiable and important to know when reading about issues surrounding gray wolves in the U.S., especially after the reintroduction of the species. In addition, external links to fact sheets were deleted for multiple animals -- this was not meant as spam, but as a way to provide people with more scientific and educational information about a particular animal or species. These fact sheets are incredibly useful for students and for educating the general public, which is a trait shared by wikipedia. Thanks for your time. Defendersofwildlife (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you start canvassing multiple articles with the same link, we call that spam. Please don't do it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same link. Each link was a different URL to a separate animal page. Each animal page contains focused, scientific data about that particular animal. e.g. the bald eagle page and URL is completely different than the alligator page and URL. Defendersofwildlife (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same site. I'm not discussing it anymore. Find a different venue for promoting your organization. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A vandal you blocked added what sounds to me like threats of violence [7], which I reverted. Should this go to checkuser to see if he has other accounts? Edison (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. They won't do a checkuser for "fishing." I protected the talk page, so they can just yell at the screen for awhile. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "gold" article, it was littered with spelling inconsistencies in both forms of English. It has been reverted to it's incorrect form in violation of Wiki policy by a "new" user.

The original form of the article was in one form of English; and amendments added in American English.

Wikipedia policy is that articles are kept in the original form of English used (rather than separating them into two forms as is the case with Norwegian).

Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Consistency_within_articles Then please, revert the changes.

Without naming names, it is against Wiki policy to immediately refer to article changes as Vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

Do not go around throwing your weight about just because you've got enough time to kill to be a moderator. Sort your attitude out. The Ancient Clan of Pimps and Huslters (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of the policies. If you go back to the earliest history of the Gold article, you'll see American spellings. Your pov on British/American spellings is well documented in your limited contributions. Cheers Mate! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to advertise. The company's page is already up, and I thought links to their official site(s) would be appreciated, useful, and couldn't get more relevant than that. I don't know what the big deal is. It's actually just a school project, that's all. It looked like Wikipedia was getting more pages and info lately on companies, but maybe not. I certainly won't be looking on here if I want to know more about a certain company. Career Genie (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)\[reply]

You are free to look where you want. Just don't post any more links here. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few months ago you reverted a few of my edits. You explained your reasons and I accepted that I needed to learn as much as I can about Wikipedia policy and procedures and rules and everything Wikipedia. I have read most, if not all of it, and you sir, I believe now with all conviction, revert edits just because you can instead of actually contributing to an article. I'm sure you have written an article here and there, clean a few up through hours of work, but you tend to just land your heavy hand on the table and make everything on it fall instead of gently moving the pieces in their correct place. It's a very annoying thing that you do, but if you feel you must, then go right ahead and revert till you feel all warm inside. I am no Wikipedian but I tend to edit here and there, punctuation, spelling, grammar, but I do not dare to edit seriously anymore because some editor is just going to revert all my work and give me a lame explanation. So I will just admire Wikipedia and I don't care to be an editor anymore because it's obvious that anyone can be an editor as long as they have plenty of time to do as they will. There is no wonder why you get vandalized as much as you do, and I bet you like it. Take care and be good. P.S. I won't be at all surprise if this gets edited out as well ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.48.167 (talk • contribs)

You'll need to be more specific if you expect any sort of meaningful response. I have no idea what edits you are talking about. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i just wanted to agree with the comment above this one and say, i think you're ridiculous. i've added a considerable amount of content to the provo, ut page because i love provo and the page has little to no actual content, especially about provo's renowned art and music scene. but apparently, you are more than okay with listing some jackass byu "track stars", lds musicians, and some dancer no one has ever heard of as "notable residents". but you go out of your way every time to remove josc castor, someone who consistently plays shows to crowds of 300 to 1000 in and out of provo (like this summer when provo city shut down 100 north and he played to 1200). the difference between him and these "track stars" is the people that pay money to come to his shows come because they have a deep emotional connection with his music. not because they are bored college kids that go would go to any school-sponsored events. so thanks for being so "objective". if josc were homosexual like steven merrit and tegan and sara, then would he be notable? just wondering. i hope you remove this, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwonderedthenbutnowimfine (talk • contribs) 08:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read up on our notability and reliable sources policy. A MySpace page, for instance, is not a reliable source. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

all i'm saying is be consistent. i link josc castor to an article written by a prevalent newspaper about him, not myspace. which is far more citation than the byu "track stars" have.

If you don't think the track stars are notable, feel free to remove them since their notability is unsourced. I note that the "Arts, Music, and Culture" section is entirely unsourced (other than a reference to a festival), and thus doesn't meet WP:Verifiability guidelines, and only two of the named groups appear to meet notability guidelines. That section will be truncated unless references are provided indicating notability of the named groups. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i beg to differ. in the arts, music, and culture provopodcast.com was sourced, as was hotel palindrome records up until a couple days ago when someone removed the link.

Providing a link to the record company's site or to a band's MySpace page doesn't count; see WP:Reliable sources. For specific notability guidelines concerning bands, see WP:MUSIC; for company guidelines, see WP:CORP. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ohnoitsjamie, who was not happy that I added to the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#History_of_Monsanto about Monsanto the latest out-of-court development as of the 19th March 2008. I have now put in as well the reference, a press release in German language. I hope that a press release is an acceptable reference - if not, I would like to know what is? This development is indeed the most decisive I have read about GMO, because if a company claims property rights on a plant which carries modified genes, then the company is legally responsible to removing it, wherever it grows in the world. I am looking forward to your response.

The material is poorly written, and not entirely supported by the named source. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohnoitsjamie/archive11! Thank you for your support in my RfA (87/3/3). I truely appreciate the many votes of confidence, and I will exert myself to live up to those expectations. Thanks again! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, douchebag, before you undo my edit you might want to realize that Google's "custom time" is referenced elsewhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.183.108 (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of all the members, I'd like to officially welcome you to the Douchebag Club. [8] You'll get your membership card in the mail, that'll make you eligible for a 10% discount at Wal-Mart. Redrocket (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay for me! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to inform you that you were wrong for saying I vandalized the page. Google owns youtube. You need to get off your high horse, and admit you were wrong. I'm sorry, but you are NOT the god of wikipedia. So do not correct me when you are clearly in the wrong. ^_^

Have a nice day ^_^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.68.118 (talk • contribs)

Google owns a lot of things. Google owning YouTube does not mean that YouTube is Google or vice versa. If you continue to post irrelevant material on that page, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled upon that article because Young Man was linked from it; that page was actually about a Jack Ingram album. (I have since moved it to a dab page, since Billy Dean also had an album with that name.) When I tried to remove the link to Young Man, it told me there were some spam links, so I snipped those out (all four of 'em); and then I noticed that one section that read like one big copyvio. The falconry page is still a wreck, but I think it looks better now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am the user who recently added a section to the article on Christianity, which apparently you deleted. I am sincerely interested in the reasons for the deletion, though I can probably guess some of them. I just want to see where you're coming from so I can improve my future contributions.

Thanks in advance for the constructive criticism, my username: christianw7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christianw7 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The passage you introduce, while well-written, reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia entry. You'll want to start by reading our policies on original research, neutral point of view, and WP:Reliable sources. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an admin ? If you say that there isn't problems for these categories i stop now. But i want to notice to you (see here) vandalisms of Bill Thayer: Personal attacks on my talk page, spam of its personal site (now removed), some lies, and so on. I come formatting the categories, if you say they are useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.194.103 (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am an admin. No one is attacking you. I see no instances of vandalism in Bill Thayers edits. The single link he posted is hardly commercial or promotional. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got your very kind note, thanks. That said, although the overwhelming bulk of the 2900+ links to my site were not inserted by me — I really do have better things to do! — and there are plenty of pages where I haven't inserted links to information on my site because I don't think my site is good enough (although in those cases I haven't removed the links to other sites, although they're even less good!): we try to make the world better. If it so happens that I have the best information online, as I do for certain places in Umbria, a region I know very, very well: then I'd put links to my own site, yes. Recently, even, I've been forgoing even that; the latest example where I neither edited nor linked to myself for example, is the stupidity, exploded as a fraud in 1887, in Wikipedia's article Justinian about his name having originally been "Uprauda", I just didn't bother with, be just this kind of thing, revert wars, pretenses at scholarship, etc.: see Bryce's article.

That said, to avoid any further problems of any kind — returns to me far outweighed by incivility like this, my hands shook for half an hour after I saw that item — I asked my server master, James Eason, to blank all links on Wikipedia to my site. He not only acceded to my request, but included his own site on Sir Thomas Browne, for which he is an authority, and Jim Grout's Encyclopaedia Romana: it was easier to do it across the whole server: we rather agree on Wikipedia. In sum, in order to reach the link I just gave you, anyone reading it above will have to copy it and paste it; although there are still some kinks to be worked out — the Bryce link I gave you seems to go thru for now, but most of the others are blocked (see for example the link under "External links" at the end of Pliny the Elder, the Latin text).

I know fellow siteowners out there who'd sooner shoot themselves in the ear than do that, but in my case (1) Wikipedia accounts for a very small percentage of my site traffic; (2) I'm completely uninterested in site stats (at least in terms of bulk numbers, which merely represent expense and server drain), my aim being to provide good information online to those who need it; (3) and most importantly, what matters to me is the quality use of my site, (even now about 80% of my traffic is for very silly reasons or from poor use of the search engines — the people who land on me, by and large, themselves don't want what I have to offer), and, according to Google Analytics, the ratio is particularly bad with people clicking from Wikipedia. (I'm also well aware that all links on Wikipedia are "nofollow", so that anyone who tries to spam Wikipedia in order to pump up their search engine rankings is not only dishonest, but a fool!)

The solution to the garbage on Wikipedia is very, very simple, but has only been partly implemented and then, only under the duress of the Seigenthaler incident: in order to edit, just like almost every bulletin board on the planet, registration and a valid e-mail should be required. Watching my watchlist, for months now, the overwhelming bulk of "edits" I've seen has been vandalism and reversions, followed a distant second by footnotes, references, templates, categories, etc., an equal distant third to that by spellings, rephrasings — and only last, to the actual substance of articles. In sum, Straining at Gnats and Swallowing Camels: in that Justinian article for example, the paragraph in which the idiotic Uprauda appears is decorated with 12 references to 9 footnotes, some of them documenting the most obvious facts — yet Mr. Uprauda is in full unfootnoted glory!

By temperament and philosophy I'm a utilitarian; my basic idea online, whether on Wikipedia or on my own site, is to produce the best result for the most people with the least work. Needless to say, having to fight for everything, even often the most obvious things, doing them over several times, etc. is diminishing returns. It's bad enough when I goof up on my own site, as I often do, unfortunately, and have to go back and fix it! let alone the endless cosmic struggle on Wikipedia. There are many sensible and civil people on Wikipedia, and many good editors — but you guys are being swamped, and it's got worse over the last coupla years.

The "self-promotion" bit is incomprehensible to me. Obviously it doesn't enter into Wikipedia's internal category system, so I'll lv that aside. As noted, I include a link to my own site only when it's good; and I mention the source (as for example in the article Durastante Natalucci when the article would be taken by some conscientious person as being a copyvio had I not explicitly marked it. I derive neither income nor academic fame nor, alas, any other advantage from my website; unlike Wikipedia, I do not ask for money — and the last person who wrote me, unsolicited, to give me some, I turned down. So I just assume people are chasing their own demons, but there's no reason I have to be dragged into them. . . .

Again, you've been kind and sensible, and I sincerely appreciate your kindness, which undid most of the damage to my nerves (I'm not well, and react very unhappily to bullying and abuse): so I really owed you this rather full note (see what you've opened yourself up to!); but it's a farewell: I'm logging off, and will not be back, either under my user name or anonymously. I can, of course, always be reached thru the e-mail pages of my own site. Kind regards, Bill (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that you're leaving, Bill. As I mentioned, you've been a great contributor. I only mentioned the thing about the links as a heads up, as I didn't have a personal objection to them. Though I delete lots of spam links, I didn't feel that your links were a problem. (For that matter, I very rarely touch .edu links unless I see mass-canvassing going on, as very few .edu domains tolerate commercial activity). It doesn't surprise me at all that others would have added links to your site, especially given that your site probably comes up frequently on Google searches given limited info on topics you cover. I do hope that you reconsider you decision to leave the project, but either way I wish you well and am sorry that your experience was soured by an anonymous individual with some bizarre vendetta against you. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno if this is trolling or not, but feel free to revert me if it wasn't. 21655 ^τalk/ _ʃign 19:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I'd call it trolling, but I would call it useless. A soon-to-be-blocked funny guy trying to impress his friends with fake crap in Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random silliness. Had me chasing down fake historian names the first few times, at least. Hope they got some satisfaction from that. Kuru ^talk 19:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a history expert, but the whole thing smelled like BS to me (and there were a few obviously false statements). Changing the name of your author several times isn't exactly slick either. The last name he used (and book) were real, but that was about it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess its up to you sir,from your lofty liberal perch,to define and/or defile our Freedoms-now that your all grown up and have a little "control"...........Jay T

That's exciting. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess its up to you sir,from your lofty liberal perch,to define and/or defile our Freedoms-now that your all grown up and have a little "control"...........Jay T —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.120.4 (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exciting. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See kids, this is why IP editors should get a user ID. Without a history of your actions, no one has any idea what you're talking about. Redrocket (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused by your removal of a MEDICAL DOCUMENT from a category. I am at a loss to how you could consider what I wrote spam. I added a MEDICALLY approved document to wikipedia, validating a piece of information - and you removed it. Why would I want to SEO Blackwell-Synergy? Why would I want to spam that? Medical traction for the penis is now proven to work, and I added that information to Wikipedia. Here's an idea, I just want that information there. So why don't you do whatever it is your have to do to add that, without the links, spam, advertising or whatever it is that you think is there. Just make it known that traction works and has been proven to work. How's that sound? No hard feelings, I am sure Wikipedia gets hammered with BS - but some on... don't remove real legit information. This is a MEDICAL JOURNAL. Not spam. :)

Scientific study or not, it's pretty obvious (given your past contributions) that you're here to promote a penis enlargement company. Furthermore, the study was specifically about treating Peyronie's disease, not about increasing size in healthy men. I won't object if you re-add it to the Peyronie's disease article, but that's it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.58.188.68 (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted this edit of yours. The IP editor was correct; AT&T has supplanted T-Mobile. I improved on his or her citation with this article when I did the reversion. Thanks for keeping an eye on that article, though. It certainly attracts its share of crap and cruft. --Dynaflow babble 01:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's not what I'd intended to revert. I only saw the second edit, which added "In Bristol,UK there is a coffe shop named Starbooks." I intended to revert that as too trivial/inconsequential. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is a vandal whom you have warned operating on the article self injury. They are persistently changing the spelling of one word in the article against the spelling convention. The users actions constitute vandalism since they are extremely repetitive in nature and they have now included swear words into the main article text. Can you help them stop? The user is Radical18241 (talk). Sorry I didn't know how best to deal with this vandal Jdrewitt (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OhNoitsJamie -- I've been looking at the Hogging article and I added a notability tag. I was wondering if, in your opinion, this topic is notable, or a candidate for possible deletion (again.) I read through the past discussions to delete or keep, so I know the history of this article. But I want a more experienced opinion on this.

I've read the sources cited on the article, and even though one of them is in a peer-reviewed journal (based on the original 2003 article in Cleve Scene + a few more interviews -- it was qualitative research, not quantitative), I don't believe they constitute notability. Please let me know what you think, if I am in error to cite the notability guideline, and if you think there might be a case for deletion. I believe this is one of those topics for which Wikipedia has become a primary source of information -- I was contacted by a member of the media who wanted to do a television piece on this issue, and from what I can tell, all of his information came from Wikipedia, and he was unable to find anyone to independently verify the phenomenon. Okay, I will stop bugging you now. Thanks Peggynature (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again -- the article has been Nominated for Deletion. If you could, would you please weigh in on the discussion? Thanks :) Peggynature (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

In regards to the Parkchester listing, THE PARKCHESTER INFORMATION NETWORK [9] has been listed on Wikipedia a very long time ago and was, as a matter of fact, the first external link to be listed.

Why was the link deleted. THE PARKCHESTER INFORMATION NETWORK is not a commercial website but rather a great resource to the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.224.162 (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links don't get tenure. It's commercial, period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie,

Thanks for your the explanation in your note. I did read through the External Links Guideline, and I'm not sure I agree with the premise of your link deletion. The page is not commercial in nature, nor an advertisement. It is a directory of churches in a particular city, and a helpful resource for a city page. If there is a way we can change the page that we're linking to better adhere to the guidelines, could you give us some suggestions on it? Thank you for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mychurch (talk • contribs) 01:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the following to RapidShare.

<<quote>> How ever, independent sites providing content listings are available that allows anybody to obtain a specific URL based on a keyword search. ref = http://rapidshare-search-engine.com <</quote>>

This was to avoid readers getting the misconception that it was not possible to "search" RapidShare files, as mentioned in the wiki. Many such indexing sites exist, and allows any non-memeber to search and download files.

My view is that, on being impartial and neurtal, this fact has to be shown.

How ever each time i added this, it was reverted. Lastly i got a warning for vadalism from you. I beleve that my addition is clarification of an existing fact, along with a reference, and that it should be added to the RapidShare wiki page.

I strongly disgree with ur interpretation of this addition as "vandalism"

Tidalbobo (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why u hav done this. I need to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidalbobo (talk • contribs) 07:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your website. That's why. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly support your statement regarding the suckitude of American Idol. It's the epitome of the realitrash TV, and the idea of it being (or having been) rated number one is both scary and sad. Cheers! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, forgot about that! The sentiment remains the same, though I did hear a rumor that it was nearing the end of it's run (yay!) Let's hope that whatever replaces it isn't worse. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted Nashville homeless power project as CSD-A7. The article's creator wrote (to the person who tagged the article): "It wasn't complete, but it did have plenty of references." Could you please take another look at the article and consider whether the references might be enough to establish notability? If you restore the article to my userspace, I could try to improve it. --Eastmain (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are WP:Notability references, post them here. I could not find any. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(No particular interest in the subject, but I sense slim notability after a search for references) Please consider the following as possible references for different aspects of the article (unfortunately, I never saw the article itself, so I am working blind) - none of these is a blog or forum: [10] (obviously, its own website), [11], [12], [13], [14] (local government), [15], [16], [17]. I will understand if you do not agree with these, however, I seem to detect a slight element of notability which should really give the article a chance to be developed, if restored. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I restored it. Thanks for taking the time to dig up the references. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you for being reasonable. I have moved it to the more correct capitalized title; otherwise, I will now leave it to interested parties to develop it, thus ensuring it doesn't get wiped in the future. Thanks again. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence to the definition of cattle to say that cattle are sentient animals with awareness and the capacity to feel and to suffer, and I included a reference. This is an important aspect to mention since it is commonly overlooked and not mentioned anywhere under the entry for cattle. I would like to point out that on the wikipedia page about dogs there are several paragraphs on dogs' personalities and intelligence. I've included a few examples below. Why do you allow those statements but no comments that cattle even have the most basic capacity to feel pain? It looks like you are biased and not remaining neutral.

"Dogs are very social animals, but their personality and behavior vary with breed as well as how they are treated by their owners and others who come in contact with them. It is not uncommon for dogs to attack humans and other animals; however, this is usually because of lack of care or improper upbringing by its owner."

Evaluation of a dog's intelligence "The meaning of "intelligence" in general, not only in reference to dogs, is hard to define. Some tests measure problem-solving abilities and others test the ability to learn in comparison to others of the same age. Defining it for dogs is just as difficult. It is likely that dogs do not have the ability to premeditate an action to solve a problem.

For example, the ability to learn quickly could be a sign of intelligence. Conversely it could be interpreted as a sign of a desire to please. In contrast, some dogs who do not learn very quickly may have other talents. An example is breeds that are not particularly interested in pleasing their owners, such as Siberian Huskies. Huskies are often fascinated with the myriad of possibilities for escaping from yards, catching small animals, and often figuring out on their own numerous inventive ways of doing both.

Assistance dogs are also required to be obedient at all times. This means they must learn a tremendous number of commands, understand how to act in a large variety of situations, and recognize threats to their human companion, some of which they might never before have encountered." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry845 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing more than soapboxing to mention that cows are sentient in the lead. All animals are sentient and feel pain. If your interested in the ethics of eating meat, there's already an article for that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem? I was still in the process of writing the page! I'm getting really aggravated because people ask me about the site all the time and I wanted to put it out there so people can get information about why it was created and all. WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawbreaker77 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the messages on your talk page indicate, Wikipedia is not the place to promote your non-notable blog. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I'll cease with my alterations of Hillary's page. I bow before you. /bowPiebunion (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added valuable information, and you just deleted it. It was in no way vandalism, it was info on one of my teachers. It was not biased or anything. I know you have so much power on Wikipedia, but don't be a jerk and do whatever you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freelectricity (talk • contribs)

I think you need to read up on Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:NPOV and WP:Notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm doing the right thing here... I thank you for your feedback, yet I'm noting at least according to myself that the band entry falls correctly into several notability conditions plus that I'm an independent person from the band yet as I happen to know the same band I was granted permission to generate this page yet I don't see how this could constitute a conflict of interest. When I created the page I only followed on what was done in other local bands pages (maltese bands stub) some of which were much less notable then the band in question. I'm really striving in following all the neccsary criteria yet I cannot see where my entry is failing. yes i really do need help apparently & I don't think I'm asking for much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yendor79 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have seen that you contributed to Online chat in the past... currently there are contrary opinions about a list of chatting software. Maybe you could have a look and comment on the discussion, thanks! - 83.254.215.235 (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that GuptaWang is self-promoting as soon as his block expired. He has placed a link to his book "The Quest for Global Dominance" in the globalization article, among other things. That I'll revert but his other edits and whether he should be blocked again I'll leave to you, since I'm pretty new around here.Academic38 (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Blocked indef, self-promotion articles deleted. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you deleted my page about Third Time's the Charm because it lacked notability. First of all, I wasn't finished, second of all, I know I'm new to this, but who are you to decide which bands are notable? I know that 3xC is a punk band and therefore isn't nearly as artistic or groundbreaking as most of your godlike indie bands, but you could have let me finish the article.Gfschind (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a band article doesn't assert WP:MUSIC notability, it gets deleted. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they have recived airlplay in the New Orleans area..if you would have let me finish the article, you'd have known that.

You don't seem to have read WP:MUSIC. Getting airplay in a single market is not enough to meet WP:MUSIC notability requirements. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

about comment on ossama bin laden discussion pageAMERICAN MIGHT (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to editing wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMERICAN MIGHT (talk • contribs)

No worries. Just be sure to use the talk pages for article improvement, versus soapboxing. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad to hear about your love for Hannah Lanoue but could you keep it out of the articles. I suspect that you and Doctormanhattan were both trying to remove the crap added by Meganloveshannah and the Dr. beat you. Gave me a good laugh when I saw what you had done. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 02:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, on 18 January 2008 you removed this external link "Banana and Plantain Section of Biodiversity International" from Banana[18] and apparently in connection with this removal left these warnings and threat[19] on User talk:Kamayav. To me this external link appears to fit within the guidelines for external links easily. I am concerned that a new user was threatened with blocking for doing something which appears totally OK. Please explain what you find objectionable about the linked site. SmithBlue (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are a hard-working admin. And don't want to add unnecessarily to your burden. But the new user is a ag scientist from a tropical country and I'd like a lot more editors like this on WP. SmithBlue (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you examine the editors brief history, you'll see that they started out by canvassing numerous articles with links to the same site, a violation of WP:EL and probably WP:COI. I have no objections to the editor applying their knowledge and adding content to articles, but it's not appropriate to canvas links (especially if the editor is affiliated with the site). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a new editor, with a view point that helps WP become more globally relevant, being typified as a canvasser violating WP:EL, and as probably violating WP:COI too. And then being threatened with being blocked.

And the material that was added? - notable, relevant, on-target for the articles.

• Cacao at Bioversity International

Gourmet chocolates to boost incomes and preserve biodiversity at Bioversity International

• Global Approaches to Cocoa Germplasm Utilization and Conservation by Eskes, A.B. and Efron,Y. (editors), 2006. CFC, ICCO, IPGRI. ISBN-13: 978-92-9043-734-5
• Cacao, by Frison, A., Diekman, M. and Nowell, D. 2000. FAO / IPGRI Technical Guidelines for the Safe Movement of Germplasm No. 20 ISBN-13: 978-92-9043-399-6

etc, etc.

Can you understand my concerns? If so please address them. If not then we will need to work towards a consensus and understanding of WP policies. It may be best that time be spent with us discussing how you arrived at your view of this new user and whether following that process again would be in WPs best interest. SmithBlue (talk) 06:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained my position. The editor was warned for canvassing links to a site he/she is probably affiliated with. If you think one of more of the links is useful in the article, you're welcome to re-add them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]