Jamie, Is it actually possible to leave any comments/ alterations on wikipedia? every comment on wikipedia I've made in over six months has been deleted. Yet 'Commercial' links remain all over the site. Is wikipedia run by the same people as DMOZ? A classic example of this would be on 'ipod forums' where a link to a clearly commercial site (Over 200k users - so I can't imagine the owner is running it for free (even says in his signature making a living online since...etc) exists. I give up if wikipedia wants to be seen as a 'Boys own/ DMOZ club' well done it's succeeded!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.63.18.5 (talk • contribs)

WP:EL guidelines say that large notable forums are appropriate, but suggests that they be limited. I agree that there are probably too many forum links, but it can be difficult to determine which is the most notable one. These links are often added by someone who is not affiliated with the site. Notability is the crux of many Wikipedia inclusion policies. In your case, your edit history largely consists of adding links that appear to be promoting a commercial site. That sort of pattern quickly attracts the attention of Spam Project patrollers. Incidentally, if you see external links that don't appear to be notable or are low in content, feel free to delete them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, hey. you guys recently deleted one of the pages I made about my aspiring actor friend R.J. Now you stated it was an attack page, and im curious, do you know him, are you his friend? How can you decide what is and isn't true if you don't know said person? I'd assume that you'd need to have SOME background on my friend to delete it. but unless you live in my town, go to my school and be in my grade you'd know NOTHING about him.

MyNamesLogan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MyNamesLogan (talk • contribs) .

The article was deleted because there was no evidence the subject met WP:BIO guidelines. That's all I need to know. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie Its Jamie lol . I did Put my social network site as a resorce for nerd and geek but I though That I was making friend not hurting anyone. I'm not a huge site In face I come he're all the time for info . I also read the term and notice it said "ide-scale external link spamming" I don't claim to be brilliant but is 2 or 3 link wide scale spamming. Plus ther are no fees to sign up for the community Its mostly a place for blogging about things you love and my mother suggested adding som ways to make money there. If you have time to explain the policy to me a little I'd love it.

Thanks Jaime or tj1979

Hi Jamie, Need some help. The mesg reads..

"To meet Wikipedia's quality standards and conform with our NPOV policy, this article or section may require cleanup. The current version of the article or section reads like an advertisement."

Not sure what I should do to clean up.. I have read the NPOV policy.. but I am not sure what part I could change so this article does not read like an advertisement. Could you guide me to the points that can be neutralized so it looks less like an advertisement and more like a Wikipedia article. I have taken a few things out.. to me it looks like a Wikipedia article.. guess I am missing something. This is a very new branch of Yoga and is catching on very fast among people around the world. I don't want to advertise it.. so could you help me?

Thanks for your help

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shantiayp"

Thanks so much Jamie. So how and where do I show verification and notability?

Thanks again. How much time do I have before they delete this article? If they do delete is there anything I can do after that to re-instate it or re-submit it?Shantiayp 01:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Jamie.. One last question.. can I talk to the people who have marked this article for deletion? You said it will be open for debate for 5 days.. where do I say my side of it.. here at the talk page or at the discussion page? You have been very patient with me.. Thanks so much Shantiayp 16:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't USPHO and RSI sufficient for notability? Check the links, they are functional and support what I cited them for. --Agolsme 04:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie, you may have wondered why i was writing "no" in the description box for some tables i was uploading to a "sustainable flood management" page. I am new to Wikipedia and foolishly misread the following instruction as...

The source of the file: If you made it yourself, say "no".

When i checked this over i realised it reads "say so"

Apologies for that!

Will

Congratulations on getting your adminship tools. I was very happy to be able to give you the first support in your RfA, and I hope it had a hand in its success, but to be honest, you got it on your own merits. :-) Congratulations! --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and best wish.--Jusjih 01:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support for my recent RfA, which I'm quite happy to announce has passed with a consensus of 67 supporting, 0 opposed and 0 neutral. I'm glad you took the time to evaluate my candidacy, and I'll be working hard to justify the vote of confidence you've placed in me. Please let me know at my talk page if you have any comments on my performance as an admin. Thanks! TheProject 02:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Although I didn't participate in it (my participation in RfA discussions is generally scant), I'd nevertheless like to congratulate you on your new tools as well.

Thanks for sorting him out for now (knocks wood) - the original user is User:Danwat1234 and we've tagged his socks and added Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of danwat1234 (take a look there's a few. So if you happen to spot the next one please feel free to add 'em to the list! Thanks again, - Glen 23:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverted an edit on Affiliate. Looks like Jambhala (talk · contribs) is creating/editing a number of MLM articles to add website links, all of which (by a remarkable coincidence) resolve to the same owners. On the articles he created, I just removed the external links, but I'll be keeping an eye on them. Fan1967 00:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific on why its being considered for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptokes (talk • contribs)

My nomination in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hanzel_and_metal states my opinion pretty clearly. A passing mention in a local newspaper doesn't cut it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize it was spam. I was just adding a link that I and a lot of my collecting friends use. The news site I linked to is not selling anything- it doesn't even have advertising on the site, so I don't even see how me linking to them would help them out.

Congratulations on becoming an admin. I would have supported your RfA if I had been around to see it. Keep up the good work! --TantalumTelluride 03:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's almost more surprising to get congrats from folks who weren't around during the RfA. Cheers, 02:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your promotion to sysop-hood, you know of course that I would have voted oppose support, I've just been intentionally steering clear of RFA since stepping down from being a moving target bureaucrat. -- Francs2000 11:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this one went much better than the first one. I think the first one would've gone better if I would have taken more time to answer the questions (well, that and I like to think that I've learned a bit more since the first one). You were the first Wikipedian to "mentor" me, so I consider you a part of my acceptance as admin regardless! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. I was about to add an Apocrypha-only site, but then I realized that wasn't appropriate. I agree with your reversal, and I was about to do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.43.126 (talk • contribs)

Right on. Nice work on cleaning up the links! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, keep doing good work. *~Daniel~* ☎ 02:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the treat! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not remove just the "Blogs" you disagree with instead of a full "Revert" on the Condi page?

I congratulate you on your elevation to sysop level. I wish you all the best! --Bhadani 15:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, and congratulations! Jayjg ^(talk) 17:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have moved the Condi information to the "Controversy" section but it is not a "Controversy" paragraph it is a general description of "Sentiments" that African American's have and many Americans and International communities share. If you don't like the flavor of the paragraph so be it, but you can't go about censoring what you don't like or rearranging information to minimize it. I live in the US, I am African American, and this is a "Prevailing View" of her general character. It is not minor nor does the paragraph relate to "controversies". This is a "Descriptive View" and not a series of "incidents" which are detailed in the "Controversies" section.--216Cali 18:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the controversey you are describing is dominant enough to be positioned in the intro. Most of the sources cited in that section have to do with criticism of the Bush administration in general. I have yet to see evidence that there is "extreme" opposition to her from the African American community. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Proof" I posted was taken down by White American's who don't accept Black Publications or published opinion. There is plenty of proof. Google the phrase Condi hated by African American and you will see over 3Million hits in the negative. What more proof do you need? You want me to lie to you about how glorious her reputation is but provide no proof? I posted some of the articles you will find there but they were not White enough and were removed. So I relied on purely white news sources like the Washington Post.

Further, the disdain for her is in direct correllation to her involvement in the Bush admin. If you have isssues you should take them up in discussion and not in the main article. Or find articles that support your cause but to remove on the basis of opinion is censorship. I know the Bush Adminstration is going after the NY Times but they have not stopped the average person just yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216Cali (talk • contribs)

I don't have a cause, nor am I engaging in censorship. I'm attempting to keep the article as neutral as possible (not an easy thing with political subjects), especially with regard to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are engaging in censorship - simply saying that you are not does not change the fact that you are imposing your limited knowledge and opinion on other peoples posts. You are NOT an authority becuse you have some kind of special status on a website.. were you elected by the people? do you have a masters? a Phd? by what rights do you claim to be competent to sit in judgement over others?

Can you please clarify your reasoning behind placing the POV template on the Rice article? I see your recent discussion about the information you removed in the Controversies section but I don't see an explicit explanation of why the POV tag needs to be there. It appears to be there because of information you removed which is confusing since I don't know how you could view the article as POV if you have already removed the offending information. I'm sure you have a great reason for adding the template and that I'm just missing something. Please help me out! Thanks! --ElKevbo 22:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed once section (as described on the talk page) which was restored by the user who originally added it. I'm not interested in getting into a poticial revert war, so I'm hoping that the POV tag will bring in some additional opinions as to whether the current version of the article violates WP:NPOV. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. The POV template explicitly states that one must "explain your reasons on the talk page of the disputed article."

I feel that I've adequately addressed my reasons for the tag on the article's talk page. While I like to think that I'm somewhat up-to-speed on politics, I think it would be helpful to hear some other opinions from folks who may be more well-versed in this area than I am; from both sides. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree but I won't remove the template as I feel there has been little discussion outside of a few editors on this topic. I hope others chime in as it is difficult to achieve consensus with so few people. It's becoming a fairly civil discussion and I certainly don't want to upset that as it seems to be somewhat fragile right now. But we're making good progress and think that is more important than rigid adherance to guidelines. --ElKevbo 02:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a different topic, I think it's entirely possible to help improve the article without engaging in political discussion or revert wars. I think we have perfectly good standing if we rely on Wikipedia policies to guide our edits if our objective is to help bring articles into compliance with Wikipedia policies and not significantly add to the content of the article. --ElKevbo 22:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with any of your contributions, and feel that they've moved the article forward towards a resolution. I was seeking additional outside opinions because the editor who originally added the content seemed less interested in working within established Wikipedia guidelines and more interested in grinding an axe. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can lift the POV template. Just my two cents. --BballJones 01:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks for the good word. -- --BballJones 01:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop editing or removing my posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.133.207.244 (talk • contribs)

Because they're vandalism? Killfest2 11:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not, they are factual information Daniel. What part do you find to be vandalism?

How do I file complaints against people like you??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.133.207.244 (talk • contribs)

To be taken seriously, you must use initiative and register. Considering you lack this aforementioned initiative, it's going to be hard for you to file these unsubstatntated "complaints".

Statements of opnion, without any basis in fact, like:

'...mixing of the races produces inferior offspring that are less well adapted and posses fewer dominant expressions of the adaptations that nature pressured us to evolve

...are vandalism. Killfest2 11:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did You intend to list it to the PUI main page? Otherwise the image won't be deleted. feydey 13:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing an article early, claiming one result when its clearly another and locking the artilce its about so you can "work on it" is vandalism.--Crossmr 20:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what it is at this point, but it is certainly not simple vandalism, which is the section of WP:AIV I removed it from. The article has already been restored per a deletion review. If you wish to go forward with a formal complaint, you should use request for comment, not WP:AIV. 20:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Its a pure violation of WP:OWN, which is a policy. He's locked the article for no good reason Lumber Cartel to assert control over it. He rewrote the article and closed the AfD without any discussion, then locked the article so that could control the content. It couldn't be any clearer what it is.--Crossmr 20:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, you're at 3 reverts on Condoleezza Rice. Be careful! Isopropyl 02:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Jamie. Can you get in email contact with me about that? I had an email correspondence with him after the first block. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I've replied with the info. I also have a religion survery going on my user talk page to see if I'm biased or not.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello James. I am quite offended that you think the two external links I added to web design and jargon are spam. If I believed them to be, I would not have added them, as I am not that sort of person. Here's why it is not spam...I am a web designer that would have highly appreciated a glossary of web design jargon when I started out. That was my attempt at helping those new at the game. So, you may ask, why I did not add the content itself instead of the external link? Well that's because I update that page with new words on a regular basis, and do not wish to create extra work for myself by having to update the same info in two places. I do intend to re-add those external links, but before I do, I need to know that you are not going to remove them. That's not a game I have time for. Lastly, I would like to point out that arguably ALL external links help somebody in some way, therefore, all external links are "spam", but seeing that external links are permitted here, perhaps we just need to use our discretion? Have a look at the usefulness of the content before you delete a link. Sincerely Roxane.--cozaweb

I did look at the content before deleting the links. If you look at the history of those pages (especially Web Design) you'll see that many, many external links have been deleted in the past, so please don't be offended. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure many external links have been deleted, more than likely by your hand? However that is beside the point. We are not talking about the past, we are talking about the link that I added. And with that in mind, if you did look at the content, I cannot comprehend how you came to the conclusion that it was spam. I was not advertising my services, I was offering a useful glossary, in both cases, highly relevant. Yes, my website does not only contain the glossary, but I am certainly not going to spend money registering a new domain especially for the purposes of complimentary content for Wikipedia! Lastly, I would still like to know whether you will delete the link again if I should add it. cozaweb

The site is for a commercial design house. As described in WP:SPAM, Wikipedia is not to be used for promotional purposes. If re-add the links, they will be removed by me (or another editor) and you will be given an additional warning. Users can be blocked for repeatedly violating Wikipedia policies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just had a look at WP:SPAM, aswell as Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. Point 3 of what should be linked to on that page leads me to believe that prohibiting of external links to commercial sites is not a rule, but a guideline. I will follow the advice there and propose it on the talk page (as I would have done from the beginning, had I known) instead of arguing with you. Obviously you have made up your mind that you are king and lord of what is right on wikipedia. I only hope the rest of the users do not have delusions of grandeur as well...And what do you mean by an "additional warning"? I have had no warnings, and this isn't school buddy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by cozaweb (talk • contribs)

This was your first warning. Also, please read Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks and civility. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this to help spread understanding, please make sure to read the definitions of outcrossing on the link.

---

There is a lot of misunderstanding of genetics and further there is a lot of misinformation that people spread because they WANT you to think that there is no difference between peoples for a political or social agenda, that does not make it so. Humans share 98% of our genetic code with Chimpanzees, yet that 2% defines our differences and is important as is the difference in the human population, no matter how small the difference.

There are obviously differences in the expressed traits between Asian, African and Caucasian. These are different types of humans, if you choose to call the a race/breed or type it's up to you and it's immaterial. My argument has always been that racial diversity should be preserved which is a more neutral position rather than promoting that race mixing and interbreeding is somehow positive.

You and many people that listen to pop culture may think that by interbreeding you are helping humanity and there are lots of myths about how you will create better offspring; offspring that have the best of both parents. This is just a myth told by people who, are trying to say that people are equal, if different. Yes, people are people as Americans we believe that all people have certain inalienable rights but the best position for humanity is for each of the races to exist, separately to be the best we can. If you truly understand the advantages that diversity offers you will agree too.

I personally breed horses. And this is where I'll start telling you a story: the Thoroughbred horse started out as a mixed race horse. It was based on Arab stock and was bred only for speed for many generations, regardless of breed, the horse that ran the race the fastest was bred to other fast horses. The Thoroughbred breeding book is now closed, which means you cannot breed a Thoroughbred to any other breed, because, ANY cross you make outside of the gene pool will reduce the speed of the horse. This is called line breeding, please read this article as a basic "learn to breed" guideline: http://www.learntobreed.com/linebreeding.html. Line breeding(inbreeding) is a useful technique as is outcrossing when advantagous to produce quality results, random mixing is like a child finger-painting and does nothing positive.

What Wikipedia has been proposing is that random interbreeding is potentially a good idea and should be treated as potentially positive. Any person who knows about breeding animals will disagree, it's very unlikely that race mixing will result in a positive result unless it was planned for by a geneticist. When you cited the plant hybridization, that's what you were doing citing a hybrid that was designed in a laboratory and there were not human beings or living animals as a result of a genetic mistake. You can't through bad human crosses in the trash like you can with corn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.133.207.244 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not a geneticist, but I've taken enough bioinformatics courses in the last few years to know [1] your opinions about human "interbreeding"] are not accepted by mainstream science. Human beings are not racehorses, and the comparisons do not hold up because we're not "bred" for highly-specific tasks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for being so fantastically on-the-ball re blocking this idiot - really appreciated :) - Glen 17:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - stellar job. I can't beleive this vandal has lasted this long. It's been a month since the first attacks. Such a waste of time and resources! Keep up the good work. Yankees76 17:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's probably more than one individual. Most web forums frown upon "forum invasions," but apparently that one ignores or encourages it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestions on how we can try to work with Frances? I have to admit that my patience is wearing thin with his continous personal attacks and aversion to discussing major changes to the Condoleezza Rice article. I understand that he does not agree with some of the editors who are working on that article but he and an anonymous user (whom he has claimed is one of his roommates) have reverted the article many times with misleading edit summaries and refusal to participate in ongoing discussions on the article's Talk page. Personally, I am satisfied that neither Frances nor his roommate are interested in working with the Wikipedia community as evidenced by their numerous ridiculous cries of racism and refusal to discuss changes.

If you'd like me to move this the Admin notice board or somewhere else, please let me know. I thought I'd start with you as you're obviously very familiar with the situation and may have some unique insight. --ElKevbo 21:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I hesitate to bring new matters to WP:RFC, as it's already somewhat overburdened, I agree that the user(s) does not seem to be interested in working toward a consensus. 3RR blocks would only temporarily solve the problem. Have you been involved with an RFC before? I wont't have time to write one up today, but I'd certainly participate in one if someone beat me to the punch. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll see if I can make the time tonight to put together a well-written RFC. I finally found the particular policy for which I have been searching which should help make this case a little more clear. As you said, if you (or someone else) beats me to the punch in writing up an RFC I'll be happy to participate. --ElKevbo 21:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider filing a user conduct RFC with regards to the matter of Francespeabody? It's impossible to try to discuss the article without having one's race called into question or being branded a "racist". The comments cast a chilling effect, and despite repeated entreaties to cease the accusations, the above user's personal attacks have really made me reluctant to edit, which is precisely the sort of thing that policies like no legal threats aims to prevent. Isopropyl 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking today that an RFCU might be necessary, though Cali216 and a few of the IPs are guilty of the same thing (accusations, attacks, and refusal to work constructively towards a consensus). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collectively, they have similar writing styles, with Creative Capitalization and "liberal" use of "quotation marks". Isopropyl 01:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to apologize for cutting off your comments and putting them in the second archive. I tried to keep as much of the current discussion that I could. I just didn't know where to cut it off. Sorry for the deletions. -- --BballJones 22:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The size of the talk page was becoming unwieldy. I just wanted to restore that particular bit because it's the subject of the current edit war going on. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your recent granting of admin powers. I would like to draw your attention to a worthy use of those powers - the closing of copyvio reports listed on WP:CP. As you'll see there are many tens of such reports that need dealing with each day, and the backlog is barely being kept under control despite a couple of us spending lots of time working on them. The process is pretty easy and sorting a few only takes a little time and with a group of people helping, we can keep the backlog under control easily - just review the article & the source to ensure it is a copy, and then delete. Any help would certainly be appreciated - any questions, ask away. Kcordina ^Talk 09:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I just cleared one; hopefully, I did it correctly. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are far more socks than you blocked today. You may look at the recent page histories of Elitism and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elitism to hunt them all down, but I don't have the psychological endurance to do that now. 01:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me have the articale The Beach Patrol, The Beach Patrol is a group in an Online game that has gained much fame, they need to get their word out over Wikipedia my friend. there can be one articale for the beach patrol and then one for The Beach Patrol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Famouspogs (talk • contribs)

To be included in Wikipedia, a subject must be notable. I have serious doubts that this group meets those notability requirements. Please do not recreate the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restricting freedom of speech you dirty red. The US marines who fought for your country would be rolling in their graves. You make me sick. I was simply making the page "Britain is Better Than America" to list valid and clearly logical points. I am disheartened to see that Wikipedia supports restricting freedom of speech and is going against its beliefs of all the information to everyone. Your country has been compared to the country of Germany when Hitler rose to power. Your country is filled with the scum of the earth. I was told to make that page on the differences in British and American English talk page. Doing so was not vandalism. You are a commie pig Iraq anyone --Rkeys 00:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly logical points?" Here's the content of the deleted page:

It is quite clear to those of us who have a brain (Meaning citizens not from America) that Britan and infact any other country in the developed world is far better than America. Britain does have a stigma attatched to its name however, the fact that America was largely founded by it...American immigrants started their own country without any of the good things in Europe and now they believe they are the centre of western civilisation....Hotdogs and McDonalds anyone? Sounds delicious. No wonder all there teenagers are either obese or bulimic...

Regardless if the page is talking about America or Malta, it is nothing more than a POV rant. You chose to ignore the warnings given. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, I havent vandalised anything!! I'm just creating an article about my friend!

Hello Ohnoitsjamie/archive4, and thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of (105/2/0). I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of what I do in real life. In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. Grandmasterka 06:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry About thye kobe thing, it was late at night and i had to go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel 123 (talk • contribs) .

No problem, just letting you know! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jamie--you're not an administrator here--so shove your warnings. 71.142.208.166 22:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God, this was a funny turn of events. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Live and learn. ;) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this article deleted? Thanks. -- Diehard2k5 00:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just left a message on your talk page. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what exactly qualifies for notablitity for a deceased person? I'm sure national and/or local news, as well as newspapers would be notable. For example, per Anna Svidersky. Thanks for being courteous about the situation though. :) -- Diehard2k5 00:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the example you give stems mostly from the nature of her death (murder) and that it became somewhat of an Internet phenomenon (mention in The Guardian, 7,000 strangers signing a guestbook, numerous memorials, all of the MySpace attention, etc.). Clarences death, while just as devastating to friends and loved ones, doesn't seem to have generated the same notability. (I checked). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alrite, I concur. Thanks for the discussion though. -- Diehard2k5 00:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've readjusted my position on the talk page of the Ajax article -- please reread and post an opinion. Thanks, Sugarskane 00:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sylvie that you applied a prod2 has gone to afd if you want to comment. Thanks.--Ávril ♦ ʃáη 02:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie,

I know the external link objections and such, but over the course of many years Space and LiveScience have built up some important reference hub pages that are relevant to their wiki counterparts here - any guidance on this that you can provide would be great. Both sites have some great resources, not just stories, but multimedia and video, that are relevant - URLs http://www.space.com/hottopics/ and http://www.livescience.com/hottopics/. appreciate it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starexplorer (talk • contribs)

I took a second look at them...I see that Space.com (and it's subsidiaries) are reasonable notable and comprehensive. Just don't get carried away with the external linking (i.e., adding them to every conceivable science-oriented article). Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got your msg re: space.com and livescience.com links - i have about 10 per site that are key, rich, content-credible sources that i would like to add as external links. do you feel like that's overdoing - just want to understand as specific as i can what the limitations are - both sites have collected so much content over the course of the last few years that they almost had to have these info/reference pages! tx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starexplorer (talk • contribs)

While the sites have good content, they are also advertising-supported. For all I know, you could be an SEO consultant hired by the company. There's isn't a cut-and-dry law regarding external links, but you'll find that adding links to a for-profit site to more than a handful of articles will get you noticed by spam patrollers. While I don't object to a few links (ten might be pushing it), others may not feel the same way, and ultimately, the community consensus has the final say (well, as close to a "final say" as you'll get around here). I'd suggest posting "requests" on the talk pages for those articles to solicit opinions from others on whether or not the links merit inclusion. Two things though; first, you should always add talk comments to the bottom of a page; secondly, don't forget to sign your talk page comments with four tildes: ~~~~. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update - thanks Jamie. Helps a lot. I am not, in fact, an SEO-er, but a longtime employee of Imaginova, the company that runs space.com and livescience.com - but i appreciate you keeping me honest here. Will employ the talk technique and employ external links in moderation. Starexplorer 16:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jamie, Why did you erase my attempts to add a link to a Web site, www.lafrique.com, under the "Burundi" page? This Web site is NOT commercial, and it does contain photographs and other information of interest to people looking for content on Burundi tourism. If you think this is a commercial site, I'd like to know why, because I know for a fact the blogger has not made a single dollar out of this. Did you even visit the site and check for relevance before deleting the link?

Furthermore, please undo my "last warning" status, as my link is a good addition to the Burundi page, and your deletion of the link was an error.

Thank you,Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.8.238 (talk • contribs)

I deleted it because it didn't appear to be specific to Burundi, and it's debatable whether it adds anything (since it's a French language site on an English Wikipedia). I will concede that it doesn't appear to be commercial (or at least ad-supported). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Burundi page within the site linked to. Do you honestly think this is not an interesting Burundi tourism link? Have you found a more interesting Burundi Web site? I seriously doubt it, there are not many of them.

http://www.lafrique.com/afrique/articles/10/ This does have a major Burundi focus, and it is in English. Even the best of us can make mistakes. As I said, please remove my "last warning" status. Thank you, Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.8.238 (talk • contribs)

That's actually a good one. I'll remove the warnings; sorry about that. Wikipedia is constantly hit with spam, and tourism-related spam if fairly common; it's easy to misidentify a good link as spam. (P.S. Don't forget to sign your talk page contents with four tildes: ~~~~) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for your help. I'm just curious about how this works. If I add a link, is there one volunteer that checks it, or are there any number of administrators in your position that quickly verify it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.8.238 (talk • contribs)

No, there isn't a single volunteer (that would be an impossible job!) At any given time there are many editors on recent changes patrol; that is, they check the recent changes page and look at the diffs of what's been added. Some folks, like me, are especially interested in making sure that Wikipedia isn't used for promotional purposes. In my case, I have a "watchlist"; that is, a long list of articles that I specicifically monitor. I have a large number of African countries on that list because there was a time that they were a frequent target for spam (though not as much lately). If you create an account, you can make your own watchlist. You don't have to be an administrator to do those sorts of things; admins have a few additional housekeeping types of abilities (deleting articles, blocking disruptive users, and rollback tools). Thanks for your interest, and let me know if you have any other questions! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I post video, I no say vandalize, Video about Oklahoma, Oklahoma city, I no vandalize, Why you say me vandalize page? I in talk page, I post video. Why you hurt me like this?ou call me vandalizer.BoratinAmerica 21:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very familiar with the Borat character. You're not doing a particularly good imitation. A gimmick account can be blocked indefinitely if it's only used for adding nonsense to Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Oklahoma no get Borat show, HBO in Oklahoma no show Borat, and ALI G. They have never heard of Borat.

I would like to thank you for your input on the Etelos page. Again, I would like to know how to avoid leaving edits that are not neutral. Any chance you can offer some insight? I must also take issue with your comment "(2) Ruby on Rails is quite notable, unlike Etelos." This is a bit unfair of you to pass judgement. If you are acting as a representitive of Wikipedia, I would assume you to have a bit more tact than to assail a company's image. I hope in the future you will react in a more neutral way. Best… --Wwueric75 22:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to offend. My notability assessment was based on Google hits; 1,080 for Etolos, 2 million for "Ruby on Rails." That's a pretty big difference. As such, I'm not sure that Etelos meets WP:CORP requirements or the proposal for software notability requirements. As far as the neutral issue goes, the current article reads like a press release; example: the patented model for deploying and integrating Web-based Applications is revolutionizing Web 2.0. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering that since the Jordan Pruitt was deleted and protected is it going to be unprotected so people can put information on it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.250.118.175 (talk • contribs) .

It was deleted and protected because the subject of the article did not meet Wikipedia music biography guidelines. It was protected because it was recreated multiple times after being deleted. If Pruitt becomes more notable in the future, you can request that the article be unprotected. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Getting a little punchy with the db tags tonight. -- Grinnblade 06:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sweat it. I used to be a more loose with the nonsense tag myself, but if you read WP:CSD closely, it's clear that "nonsense" isn't the same as "complete crap." I wish obviously non-notable neologisms were technically speedyable (though some people do speedy them anyway), but they don't really fit into any of the criteria well (though occasionally if they are really short maybe A1). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie, I received a notification to say you had deleted an external link that I had added. The link was to www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vehiclesafety. I do not believe this link to be either spam or a commercial link. It provides people with independent information on how well vehicles can protect their occupants. I think that it is important for people to be informed of how well a car can protect them in a crash, particularly if they are doing research on a potential purchase. The link is to a non-commercial state government site that also provides information on vehicle modification guidelines, vehicle standards and roadworthy information (VicRoads is the source of this information within Victoria). With this in mind I am unsure as to why it has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talking goat (talk • contribs)

While it may not be a commercial link, I certainly don't think it needs to be added to every single vehicle article. Adding it to Car safety (or similar highly-relevant articles) would be fine. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article Jordan Pruitt's protection log, it says that you were the one who protected it. Is it because of vandalism? If so, I am requesting it to be unprotected. I have formed a possible draft of Jordan Pruitt's article here, showing that I have no intent of vandalising.--Ed 20:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't so much vandalism as it is the subject failing to meet music notability requirements. Wikipedia is not to be used to promote "up-and-coming" artists; individuals should already be notable. I don't see anything in the draft of the article that you've created that satisfies the WP:MUSIC criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Jordan Pruitt does become popular and well-known, will her article then be turned unprotected?--Ed 04:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there would be no problem with that. Page-protections can be removed at any time if there is a reason to do so. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was hoping for your opinion on the articles I created for these venues, seeing as I used Che Cafe, The Smell, 924 Gilman Street, and The Casbah as models for them. Please respond on my talk page, or, any corresponding AfDs. Thanks! PT ^(s-s-s-s) 00:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I understand why you've included San Diego venues in the "See Also" section for the articles about Phoenix venues. Is there a connection that I'm missing? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on talk pages of articles. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 23:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohnoitsjamie, I listed information to prevent penis pill scams for people to read and it's far from being commercial. I'm not knocking people in the head and saying you have to buy something. What makes you an expert in the penis enlargement pill field? I've been in this field since 1998 and know quite a bit. I was going to add more content few times a month, but you just love to rain on my parade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Research79 (talk • contribs)

A look at the history of your contributions (and actions of other editors) suggests that (1) you are attempting to use Wikipedia to promote a product and (2) other editors feel the same way as me about the issue. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heyyy Jamie! it's great to see you again, I had not seen your friendly virtual face in quite some time! How are you doing, dear? Everything fine, I hope :) hugs, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 15:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a swell time visiting family on the other side of the country at the moment, so I haven't been on as much lately. I'm sure glad I checked in today so I was able to wish you a happy birthday and participate in your RFA! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, enjoy those vacations then, Jamie - we're keeping you a seat right here ;) Take care! Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 15:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for the revert. I hadn't noticed that Israel thing on my userpage. Blnguyen | rant-line 06:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should you delete this talk page since you deleted the article?Rlevse 01:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Your suggestion that the article on the short student film "Another Day" be deleted.

While there is no entry in the imdb database, this film was the "first of its kind", so to speak:

1. it was produced by students aged 11 - 16, all still in full-time, involuntary education and, in some cases, undertaking exams.
2. the film was, for all intents and purposes, produced on a budget of £0.00! We only received in-kind support, for example the Ikegami camera.
3. all publicity for the film was arranged by pupils.
4. the film received notable publicity for a project of this sort (I can source articles etc. for you if you so wish).
5. a project of this sort has NEVER been attempted by a school before, at least not in the area, and the success of this project was totally unprecidented! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therbert89 (talk • contribs)

While the film may have many merits, merit does not equal notability, and notability is the chief criteria for inclusion of subjects. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely merits such as being the first of its kind, succeeding with such a low budget and being totally orchestrated by pupils make the film notable? A film such as this may be small, but it by no means not notable for its success. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therbert89 (talk • contribs)

That's a subjective interpretation of notability. See these guidelines. (BTW, to sign your posts, type four tidles (~~~~). The "unsigned" tag is intended to be used to sign for someone else when they forget to sign. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the guidelines, I can see your reasons for suggesting deletion. However, the media coverage we received, I believe, met the criteria. We received 3 reviews in Nottingham's newspapers (full page reviews, more than just a mention, therefore not excluded by the criteria) and a 5 minute television feature on ITV news. We also received continuted radio coverage throughout the project. I intend to put scans of this publicity in the article soon. (BTW, thanks for the tip on how to sign posts :-) I'm quite new to this!) Tom 00:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm not sure if local media coverage is sufficient for establishment of notability. Was the ITV coverage strictly local or national? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ITV coverage was local, but not strictly so, i.e. the news was transmitted to the whole "Central" region of the country, a large area. I would argue that this publicity, along with the low budget and the fact that this project was among the first of its kind, make the film notable enough. Tom 00:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) I've placed this on AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another Day (short film) for consensus. Thx. -- Samir धर्म 00:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recently protected[2] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 02:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a non important forum they have been mentioned numerous times on opeth.com and blabbermouth.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.171.70 (talk • contribs)

If you read WP:WEB, you'll see that that the forum does not meet Wikipedia notability standards. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read #21 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Timeshift9 and improve my articles OR LEAVE THEM ALONE. Timeshift 06:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do not own the article. I sent it to articles for deletion. Feel free to participate in that debate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep adding it if it is removed. Don't you worry about that. :-) Timeshift 06:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I will block you if you persist in disregarding Wikipedia policies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that AfD is the right way to go. I'm protesting against the speedy deletion as well. But it is likely to be deleted in accordance with notability criteria.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really shouldn't be blocking people you're in a dispute with. This is a blatant abuse of admin powers, and as admin, you should know better. Rebecca 00:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked him initially for repeated incivility, then unblocked him within minutes because I realized that he hadn't been given a formal incivility warning. I wasn't having a personal dispute with him; I was trying to explain to him Wikipedia's policies on notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense, but wouldn't it be better to put the "suggested for speedy deletion" tag on it first, as a warning, maybe just long enough so I could copy the contents of the article first in order to expand upon it instead of starting from scratch again? Is there a way I can get to it? Okay, thanks. Devios 07:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy tags are typically used by users without administrative roles. Administrators can bypass the tag if they judge the article to be "speedyable." The content of the article itself suggested that it wouldn't pass WP:MUSIC (i.e., that the band was local only). If you feel that they meet WP:MUSIC criteria, you can recreate the article (and be sure to add content that supports those notability claims). I've copied the original article content to your userspace (User:Devios/Furlong for reference. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you rock. Do you like the Velvet Teen? Devios 07:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave them a quick listen on MySpace. I like the complexity of the arrangements, though I'm not sure if I'd buy a record (I'm pretty picky). I do like some prog (baroque?) sounding bands, like Thingy, Heavy Vegetable and The Mars Volta to name a few. I'm listening to Furlong right now...sounds pretty good (though again, not sure yet that I'd go out and buy it, but I would check them out if they played at The Casbah). Unfortunately, the quality of a band isn't a criteria for inclusion; it's all about notability. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well I wouldn't call the Mars Volta baroque pop but I do like them, I saw them last night at the Phoenix in Petaluma, it's about a 400 capacity theatre, The Mars Volta played for 2.5 hours, just them, no other bands, it was pretty cool, but you could tell they were geared for and used to playing in arenas, haha. Devios 17:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard the word "baroque" used that much, just noticed that it was applied to The Velvet Teen. It's a subset of prog? I'd like to see The Mars Volta, but they're opening for the Red Hot Chili Peppers in an arena...I'd much rather see them headlining at a smaller venue. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

baroque pop first came about in the mid 60's when artists started putting strings and clavs and harpsichords in their music, making rock sound much more orchestral. the velvet teen's first two full lengths were full of harpsichord [my favorite] and piano and strings, their recent one is more about programming and 8-bit sounds, i personally think it's a little bit of a throw back to the 80's and maybe subconsciously the demoscene.Devios 01:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that sound, I'd just never heard it called baroque pop. I love the Zombies, Beatles, early Moody Blues, Yes, all that crap....and newer groups that were influenced by that sound like Zumpano. Email me and I'd be happy to do a mix-CD trade. I have about 700 CDs plus a lot of mp3s. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you have that Westboro Church as a hate group? This is wikipedia. Remember? The neutral policy? Don't say hate group. I corrected my grammer mistake I left. But just honor the policy.

Mrld 23:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to pretend that anyone on AOL will ever see a level 4 warning, could you at least use an anon only block? Instead of impacting registered users as well?--152.163.100.132 22:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw the second link only after I warned him about the first. Better to block than to be forced to monitor his contributions. Cheers, jaco♫plane 22:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link you removed (http://graphicdesign.freelancedesigners.com) from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphic_design is a link to one of the largest and most popular graphic designer directories on the web. Its free for designers and visitors. It list almost 5000 graphic designers, most in the US. It is totally appropriate for the article and just as valid (if not more appropriate) than the OTHER links in the section. Perhaps it should be in Professional Organizations - but since we do not charge members or accredit them we are not technically a professional organization. - If you cannot see the benefit to the wikipedia article linking to a free directory of graphic designers then I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexcom (talk • contribs)

It still looks like a bunch of advertisements to me. I suspect that other members of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam would agree with me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt "the fine art for arts sake article" its "graphic design" - thats a professional occupation; a business. The people that do it are called graphic designers, they earn their living designing, and thousands of graphic designers listed on the site find design work there. - its beneficial to both designers and people looking for designers and its free - so what it has commercial support (its all design related) - we refer over 2000 potential clients to designers every single day -

It is a bunch of advertisements - advertisements for DESIGNERS - thousands of them - you might as well say any professional service directory is a bunch of advertisements, that doesnt automatically make it worthless or inappropriate - the site is a designer directory, in fact its one of the largest designer directories on the internet

- bigger than yahoo http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Design_Arts/Graphic_Design/ - bigger than DMOZ http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=graphic+designers - bigger than googles http://directory.google.com/Top/Business/Business_Services/Design/Graphic_Design/

- and I read the Standards on wikipedia spam - a quote from the page: "Links to commercial sites are often appropriate. Links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote your site are not." - I added one link to that page on one article - i dont need the link to promote my site - im not spamming, im helping designers get work - ive been a designer for 19 years - why dont you ask a graphic designer if they think the link should be there - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexcom (talk • contribs)

I've asked that group at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam for a second opinion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a very considerate thing to do, and I appreciate it. User:Vexcom

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For taking care of various vandals that have hit today I Aeon award you this Barnstar. Æon Insane Ward 06:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Nice work yourself! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!, Glad to see it is quiting down, my clicking figure was getting tired! lol Æon ^{Insane Ward} 06:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly makes a second try at an article placement vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmartyn (talk • contribs)

When it's an obvious nonsense article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Program Feature: To-Do List The Esperanza To-Do List is a place where you may list any request, big or small, for assistance. If you need help with archiving your usertalk, for example, all you need to do is list it here and somebody will help you out. Likewise, if you need help with some area of editing on Wikipedia, list it here! Again, any matter, trivial or not, can be placed on this page. However, all matters listed on this page must not be of an argumentative nature. You do not need to be a member of Esperanza (or this program) to place or fulfill requests on this page. If you don't have any requests, consider coming by and fulfilling a few! This program has not been very active, but has lots of potential! What's New? In order to help proposed programs become specific enough to make into full-fledged programs, the In development section of the proposals page has been created. Proposals that are promising, but need to be organized in more detail are listed here. Please take a look at what is there, and help the proposals turn into programs. To improve both the layout and text of the front page, in an attempt to clarify the image of Esperanza, the front page is going to have some redesigning take place. Please take your creative minds to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Front page redesign to brainstorm good ideas. Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log) In order to make sure all users who join Esperanza are welcomed, a list of volunteers who are willing to welcome new Esperanzians is at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Members#Esperanza_welcomers. Please add yourself if you are interested; we want to make sure all new Esperanza members are welcomed! The In development section of the proposals page has been created. Proposals page: Some proposals have been moved to the aforementioned "In development" section, some have been left as a proposal, and others have been archived. For those proposals that were a good idea but didn't necessarily constitute a program, General Esperanzial Actions has been created. Two small pieces of charter reform will be decided on in a straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Governance. One involves filling the position of any councillors who may leave, the other involves reforming the charter. Until cooperation with the Kindness Campaign is better defined, it remains as a proposed program. There is a page for discussing the front page redesign. Signed... Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, Freakofnurture, and Titoxd 05:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

Jamie, I don't know why you deleted my entry. (I'd also like to apologize because I don't know where to write this). All or N'all is a term that we started here, and I go to school in England with people from all over the world, and Curtis has been to Australia and spread the word. I have heard many people say this term who were friends of friends, who didn't know we coined it.

Bbhh 03:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an explanation of Wikipedia's policy on neolgisms. There are few neologisms that are considered for inclusion. Exceptions would be a term that has received significant media attention and is associated with some sort of cultural phenomena. (P.S. This is the right place to bring it up). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

all right i guess that makes sense! but just you wait, it's gonna get stolen!!

Bbhh 04:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hobo the use of people first wording is vandalism to the english language, and incorrected, in the sense that it is a lifestyle choice and not an polically correct maladity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.109.106.245 (talk • contribs) .

What? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You took off a article that i wrote about <redacted>. It took me weeks to find the information neccassary to write about him. If you don't believe me thier are many good books about him I believe his is notable as one of the most intresting convicts in the last twenty years Most of his Information is from his Autobiography and journals If you would like to discuss please do! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jabooty91 (talk • contribs) .

There's not much to discuss. Here are a few choice excerpts from that deleted article:

• ...He apparently escaped customs with his magic skills the only miracle of his to be recgonized by the Pope John Paul. Upon his escape he was quickly malled and impaled by a large panda that had broken out of it's bamboo cage. What was left of him was prounced dead on April 14th at 5pm just hours away from his 31st birthday.
• ...is a Saint and was made one in late 2002 shortly Pope John Pauls death. You can find his grave in his home town of Evanston,Illinois
• ...has the largest recorded penis at an astounding 3 ft 4 in and 12.3 cms.

Please do not continue to create nonsense articles. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC) I Disagree while it may not be correct Mister Steiber believed it to be true. He was crazy and many of his stories were un true would it be more correct if i put that somewhere. It's kinda like when al gore said he invented the internet he didn't but it's all part of his story. Mister Steiber is an amazing american and he really did die from a panda attack if i could put up a picture i would show it to you. ( By the way do you know how to scan pictures on to his page?) His penis size is of course much smaller but he is the holder of the record penis size according to the 1993 Guennis Book of World Records He also had the largest wrist bone! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jabooty91 (talk[reply]

• I don't think this is the encyclopedia that you are looking for. May I suggest you that you check out Uncyclopedia? OhNoitsJamie

• I Am not Posting a fake article thier are many books on Jake steiber and you can even check people Magazine for his name. I you would like for me to re post with changes you can think off then i will but at this time you are not disscucing the issue you are deflecting my questions i know you are smart jamie why can't we post it ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabooty91 (talk • contribs)

I've indeffed him. Only a nonsense page with obscene info and other vandalism to the other article he edited. Anyway, was that an error to delete the first Jake Steiber as a g4.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I mixed up G1 and G4. I was hoping he'd take my suggestion and move on to Uncyclopedia, where his creativity might be better appreciated. I see from his last edit that he went out with a blaze of glory (LOLZ). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my article of the metal band 403 Forbiddena? They are a very notable band with a cult internet following. The many, many viewers of Nightmare City were left with no information on the incredible band they were just listening to, so it makes sense to have a page with information on them because the only sites with info on them are Japanese. They really aren't as much of a band as they are an internet phenomenon.

I at least want the information on the page back, I worked on it for three hours late at night. It was hard work translating and deciphering via Babelfish's crappy translator. -- The Norse 23:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article had already been deleted via an an afd discussion. Articles deleted via afd should not be recreated unless new evidence regarding their notability can be presented (and that those sources meet Wikipedia:Reliable_sources guidelines). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resumes:

Please review the link provided to Professional Resumes. You instantly deleted it without even looking at it. I realize that wikipedia gets blasted by spam, but it would be very useful if you verify the content before you zap something.

http://www.professional-resume-example.com is about providing information. Nothing is for sale on that site. It is supported by Adsense ads and that is all - and that is to pay for hosting and photo acquisition. It is even linked to by CareerVoyages (a government resume-related web site). In fact, it is the only web site that CareerVoyages links to that is NOT a .gov web site.

Review the website. It is loaded with content - over 120 pages of solid, original content. It is also not commercial, which MONSTER.com IS and wiki does link to them.

~smiln32 (new to wiki, but not for long)

Monster.com is commercial, but it is also quite notable. Wikipedia is not the place to drive traffic to a Adsense supported site. See WP:SPAM and WP:EL for more info. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a search for most of the topics covered in this website, you will find that this site BEATS Monster.com in most of the search engines most of the time. It beats most sites period. That is because Professional Resumes is about helping others achieve their career-related goals. The site is founded on excellent content. It has been one full year in the making and provides more solid content that 99% of the resume-related websites on the web, which (like Monster.com) make a fortune off of people. There is no way you revieved the content. If you did, you'd see that it is head and shoulders above all the "noise" that is currently available on the web. It is created by a professional resume writer with more than 25 years in the field who has authored books, worked as a consultant and coached job-seekers all across the globe.

This is not a fly-by-night spam site. It is a REAL site that is meant to help REAL people. It does, however, have to pay for itself. Just because Monster.com is "notable" doesn't mean it deserves to make money off of wikipedia anymore than any other site does. Your analysis is subjective and fallacious.

~Carla —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smiln32 (talk • contribs)

TUCOWS whois verifies that you are the owner of the site. WP:SPAM and WP:EL clearly specify that Wikipedia is not to be used to promote personal sites. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this site allowed with all of it's blatant ads and Professional Resumes is not? http://www.journalism.co.uk

http://www.professional-resume-example.com is about providing information. Nothing is for sale on that site. Far better than the site just mentioned. Read the articles and you'll see that it's outstanding content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smiln32 (talk • contribs)

I'm more interested in what WP:SPAM and what WP:EL say. You'll need to find some other way to promote your personal site. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is my whole point. Why are some sites allowed and others are not?

~Carla

There isn't a black and white answer to that, but the two links I've posted make it clear that the link is inappropriate in this particular case (please read them). I don't have anymore to say about this; you're welcome to take it to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam for discussion, but I think you'll find that most of the folks there are as picky if not pickier about external links as I am. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been deleted/remade eight times now [3] and it will keep happening. --- Lid 06:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salted, happily. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --- Lid 06:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that it wasn't intentional, but you removed my comments from Articles for deletion/SYSPRO when you added your recent comment on User:58.31.235.116's vote. And I know you don't need me to tell you this, but please be careful when editing AfD discussions, since even inadvertent changes to others' comments can easily be misinterpreted. Kickaha Ota 00:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you blocked this IP and all the users using it? An anonym-ban from the IP would have been sufficient. This type of thing is what forces me to hunt and use proxies simply to edit an encyclopedia. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is especially irritating as 220.245.178.140 is the address of a transparent proxy which forwards the user's real address. There is no need to lock so many people out. Hydrostatic 13:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That IP was marked with a "zombie proxy" tag, so it didn't occur to me that it might have legit usage. It's fixed now. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there: this page has been re-posted yet again (and tagged for speedy). I will put a warning on the userpage, but I am not an admin as yet, and you are. Any further action appropriate?--Anthony.bradbury 12:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That Grannny grabber nonsense was just stupid. It appears, though, that it has been recreated. -- Scientizzle 07:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I spaced on the name of the {{deletedpage}} template, but you beat me to it while I was looking it up. :-) FreplySpang 07:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the world will never know the truth about Granny grabbers. ;o OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 08:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So sad. I've just move-protected your talk page after it took a trip around article space, hope you don't mind. Anyway, I'm about to log off (really any minute now) so good luck with our gerontophilic friend. FreplySpang 08:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello there!

i noticed that you protected the lonelygirl15 article because people kept recreating it (i was the original author) - there's a rather contentious discussion going on on the talk page, and I wonder if you might want to take another look - the gist of it is that she's now been mentioned in more reliable sources, so people (like me) who think she should have an article are getting more vociferous - not sure if this impacts you at all, but thought you might like to know... cheers Petesmiles 12:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lonelygirl thing is incredibly insipid (then again, I also think reality TV is incredibly stupid, perhaps a minority opinion). However,I can't really argue against it meeting notability guidelines given the recent media attention. I suppose one could make arguments about the "flash-in-the-pan" nature of it, but if that's the case, we can always re-delete after it's forgotten. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Hi. I've just today been aware of this small controversy at the lonelygirl page (via searching for it and finding the permanent deletion). Anyway, I just wanted to respond to the above, for the sake of general philosophical discussion.) -- Aren't all fads, particularly internet fads very often a "flash in the pan"? If wikipedia is to cover fads and pop culture in general (which I think it should), then should it not also be an archive of past fads? If an article merits existence, shouldn't it also merit permanence? Some day, maybe a decade from now, some old fad crosses my mind, I'd like to be able to go to wikipedia to refresh my memory and find out what happened to it.--Gatfish 02:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; after all, Wikipedia is not paper. Though dislike the idea of further validating such crap by giving it an entry here, it's hard to argue against the subject's notability by Wikipedia's policies (and precedents) on the matter. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded in my talk page to your comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmazingTopics (talk • contribs)

*wanders by* *peers at contribution history* *peers at HYIP history* No. No, it wasn't a harsh decision. Nope. *wanders off* Kickaha Ota 21:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie, sorry if I'm bothering you and this is not your job, but talking to you seems like the best way to figure this out. I added a gang-load of info to the grapefruit seed extract page and some anonymous user keeps overwriting it and messing up the references, deleting entire sections - to the point of what I think is vandalism... ...what do I do? Can I put a tag on it that reports it as a popularly vandalised page? Check out it's history and I think you'll know what I'm talking about. I'm also posting on it's talk page - but the anonymous users are not. Okay, thanksDevios 21:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a content-dispute to me. In my opinion, some of the material you added was OK (such as the history section), but you removed some sourced material related to studies that cast doubt on GSE, and you added some unsourced material (making a broad array of claims about GSE's uses. You did add some sources, though some of them appeared a bit dubious (e.g., The Healing Power of Grapefruit Seed). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalize my own page? wow I have heard everything now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTruth2 (talk • contribs)

My page is the correct version. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheTruth2 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Quit vandalizing my pageTheTruth2 14:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should acquaint yourself with Wikipedia's definition of vandalism. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOu should you are the one that is accusing people of vandalizing when they are not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheTruth2 (talk • contribs) .

You were warned because you created San Diego Chargerss in order to circumvent a content dispute. Such disruptive actions fall under the rubrick of vandalism. Repeatedly removing legit warnings from you talk page is also considered to be vandalism. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quit vandalizing my page. You have been warned numerous times.TheTruth2 16:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As explained on your talk page, the restoration of legitimate warnings is not vandalism; removing legitimate warnings is; refer to the policy on talk page vandalism. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned so Stop.TheTruth2 17:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When your block expires, I'd suggest using the San Diego Chargers talk page to resolve the content dispute. Anytime you're planning on adding analysis/commentary to an article, it must be properly source. For example, you could quote/paraphrase from an ESPN or SI article. In that context, commentary is fine. Without a source, it is considered to be a point-of-view opinion, which violates Wikipedia guidelines on article neutrality. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm still relatively new, was wondering if you wouldn't mind checking out the Sculptra article to see if I did the right thing. Thanks.

-RJ1001 07:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are in violation of 3RR on my talk page.TheTruth2 20:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, WP:3RR does not apply to legitimate reverts. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F.Y.I.: [4]. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't think that would last too long. Thanks for stepping in and setting the record straight. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry it is not overTheTruth2 21:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your energies would be better spent on other pursuits. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watch yourself.TheTruth2 21:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution history speaks for itself. A friendly suggestion; dig up some sports news articles supporting the analysis you'd like to add to the Charger's article; if you can properly source and attribute subjective/analytic comments, few people will be likely to challenge them, and if they are challenged, it's likely that others will step in and defend them as properly sourced comments. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution history speaks for itself? What does that mean?TheTruth2 19:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It means the same thing that other editors have been telling you. . What does 'watch yourself' mean? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watch yourself means people are watching you. There are people who do feel you abused your power.TheTruth2 20:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, James. I'm pretty new here -- one of the parties involved in that little tempest in a teapot over at the San Diego Chargers page. I'm a bit concerned about some ofTheTruth2's remarks toward me on the Chargers talk page -- I regard comments like "Register. I know who you are" as unconstructive at best; a bullying ad hominem attack at worst. Since I'm not familiar with the rules around here, I thought I should ask an administrator what rubrick this sort of behavior falls under, and what the proper venue is (if any) for resolving the problem. Best, 71.135.100.80 06:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't call it a personal attack (or even a threat), though I agree that it's not particularly civil. While incivility is not grounds for blocking, chronic disputiveness, i.e. "exhaustion of the community's patience" is. Hopefully everyone can cool down and discuss the matter rationally. As I've said before, it's only appropriate to make subjective comments about a sports team's performance if you can source the comments (to a WP:Reliable source, not a blog); for example, "ESPN commentator Joe Smith noted that the Middletown Panthers are unlikely to have a good season this year due to the weakness of their offensive line." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • It is not a personal attackTheTruth2 14:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for clearing up the definitions for me. If, according to wikipedia rules, this falls under "incivility", then that is the definition I will abide by. I, too, look forward to a rational discussion on the Chargers talk page, but at this point I'm somewhat doubtful that one will occur.

As far as reliable citations go, I'm not really sure this is the place to discuss it, but the sources cited by me on the talk page and by Ixnay in the article text are written by Kevin Acee, a Chargers beat writer for the San Diego Union-Tribune, who has been published online (links in wikipedia article) and in print (Sporting News Pro Football Preview 2006) by one of the better sports publications out there. I hope that's considered a reliable source, but if it is not, I'll be glad to look up others. 71.135.113.159 19:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I know, that would qualify as a reliable source; just make sure that statements are quoted/attributed properly and it should be fine. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If you would like to disuss register.TheTruth2 20:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you've already been told, there is no registration requirement for editing Wikipedia (it's recommended, but not mandated). There are a number of well-known prolific contributors who prefer to contribute from an IP. Many IP addresses (especially from residential cable and DSL providers) are not shared; I know that my cable address has not changed in several years, so there should be no problem with using the IP addresses talk page for discussion. Actually, it makes the most sense to use the article pages talk page for discussion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to talk to him on his user page but Gwernol removed it. This is one reason why I told him to register.TheTruth2 20:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Gwernol moved the comment from his user page to his user talk page, which is appropriate. I'm not sure if 71.135.100.80 (talk · contribs) and 71.135.113.159 (talk · contribs) are the same users; both IPs are part of SBC's DSL pool; it may be that DSL addresses are shared more than cable addresses. In any case, there's no reason why the discussion can't take place on the talk page for the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I thought adding external links was allowed. Thank you, Forest —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forestguider (talk • contribs)

They are not forbidden per se, but the links you were adding appeared to be mostly an advertisement for a service. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]