User talk:Ohnoitsjamie/archive21

i can't believe you would take off my page and not the other one (sale page) right beside it.

Hello, I can't believe you would remove my link from sai(weapons) which is actual information regarding the sai and leave up the one to a sai sales page (just scroll down 1/2 a page. labeled: (Sai Martial Arts Weapons) http://www.martialartsgear.com/weapons/sai/sai.shtml. The pages I add I take a lot of time to write and am really trying to add value. The other one you removed has been one is actually the weapons of the historical ninja as they are compared to today's weapons. On the pages I list I even take off the main menu navigation to my site it isn't a sales page in anyway! Thanks, Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjowner41 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

See our WP:COI policy. If you see other low-value commercial links, feel free to remove them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You didn't say anything about the page I put up. Do you really think it was spammy? I must be doing something wrong for you to think so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjowner41 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Quizzing in India

Article on quizzing in India : http://himalmag.com/Trivial-pursuit_nw4739.html You got a mention. 72.163.216.217 (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I'm glad my efforts to keep that article from degenerating into a poorly written free-for-all advertisement have been noticed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:55,1 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that the adulation of Neil o Brien and the Anglo Indian community does not require a source? If the RC quiz in bangalore predates Neil O'Brien's meanderings, why should that not be the first event to be credited. The RC Quiz continues to run to this day.

It does have a source; several, in fact. Please do not change it unless you can provide a WP:Reliable source stating otherwise. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Please quote your sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totaltully (talk • contribs) 21:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The. Sources. Are. Already. In. The. Article. Please. Read. Them. Jeesh. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If the Hindu article can your source, this is the source for the RC quiz predating Neil O' Brien - himalmag.com/Trivial-pursuit_nw4739.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totaltully (talk • contribs) 21:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That source does not meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines, as it is an op-ed piece written by a "volunteer with the Karnataka Quiz Association in Bangalore." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So, you can use an article written by Neil o Brien's son, but an article by the President of the KQA is not good enough? In any case, the article is not being cited to extoll or deify the KQA, but to refer to a quiz conducted by a third party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totaltully (talk • contribs) 22:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Your free to make suggestions for the article at the article's talk page. You can't just remove two perfectly good sources and replace them with one you like better, especially given that the latter is an op-ed piece that doesn't cite research. Numerous articles make reference to O'Brien as the "father of quizzing" in India, and usually also mention that it was Basu who brought mass popularity to quizzing. If you're going to counter either claim, you'll need more than just one op-ed piece. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

None of your links have any research, just myths passed on and perpetuated by folks like Derek o Brien (who has vested interest in propogating the O'Briend brand'). There is also no reason for you to 'advertize' Neil o Brien's activities as to what he did later. This is not a fan page, which is what you seem to be keen on making this. And please do not try to lump Basu's popularizing quiz with your deification on Neil O'Brien. The two are not connected.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Totaltully (talk • contribs) 22:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources. Period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not hide behind banalities. One of your articles is by Derek o Brien, the son of Neil o Brien (who you say has fathered something that started 5 years before even heard of the concept). One other article is by Saranya Jayakumar, who is the President of the Quiz Foundation. The article i cited is by Arul Mani, the current President of the KQA. Our sources have the same standing. The articles linked to do not qoute any research - just urban myths that havent been substantiated by any means. In fact the one by Derek o Brien lists quizmasters only from Kolkatta. In 20 years of quizzing in India, I haven't ever seen them host a national quiz of any standing. And beyond the prosaic, what does 'Father of Quizing' even mean? Did Neil o Brien go from place to place and start off a tradition of quizzing. In any case, what makes you an expert on the matter. Far as i can tell, you haven't set foot in India let alone participated in a quiz. Please bring some objectivity to your own assertions. Quoting from Times of India articles hardly lends any credibility to your claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totaltully (talk • contribs) 01:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability through reliable sources is core policy of Wikipedia. I'm not going to repeat myself further; the burden of proof is on you to refute numerous quality sources. Take your arguments to the talk page for the article. I'm not discussing article details here anymore. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Please start my cutting the tripe in your current version. The lines on Niel o Brien cannot stand as they are not objectively proven. Please cite any article that shows how quizzing evolved from that hallowed Quiz in Kolkata. If anything, the growth is a loose, chaotic growth which has its center of gravity in South India. If you do not have facts and still want to impose your own creative use of limited data, that is another matter. You have no sources to speak of that are better than mine. As things stand, this stub is as useless as a chewed wad of tobacco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totaltully (talk • contribs) 02:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not discussing it here any more. Take it to the talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding Artistic Tag Cloud

Hi I added a section about artistic tag cloud (Wordle, etc). This is not for promotion of Wordle or Tagul or Tagxedo but it is to add a very useful piece of information to this (very much incomplete) Wikipedia entry. Could you please revert, edit, or teach me what I should do to make this acceptable, while presenting the idea of artistic word cloud? I understand the "no advertising" reasoning but how else do you mention Wordle (synonymous with artistic word cloud) without mentioning Wordle? To a lot of people -- children in particular -- who want to learn more about tag cloud and all they get is the current Wikipedia entry which is so incomplete. I wouldn't mind starting a new page on "artistic word cloud" but if this edit cannot get through I don't see that a new page will work either. Please help.

Bryce.Samuels (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There no evidence that any of those three companies are notable. If you had a 3rd-party reliable source, such as the New York Times, The Register, Wired, etc., that would be another story. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's some additional information.

Wordle:

An entire chapter was devoted to Wordle visualization in the book Beautiful Visualization .

News and reviews from PC World featured in Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/17/AR2010091706457.html

New York Times features Wordle as part of its Visualization Lab http://vizlab.nytimes.com/visualizations/obama-dnc-acceptance-speech-wordle-2

Regularly used by different news site to highlight speeches/articles. For example, CNN http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/25/obamas-press-conference-in-clouds/

Tagxedo:

New York Times article on use of Wordle and Tagxedo in school http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/tech-tips-for-teachers-free-easy-and-useful-creation-tools/

TechCrunch coverage on its 3rd day of public beta: http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/09/tagxedo/

LifeHacker coverage http://lifehacker.com/5513364/tagxedo-generates-stunning-custom-word-clouds

Wordle's creator loudly praised Tagxedo in his own blog http://blog.wordle.net/2010/04/tagxedo-is-amazing.html

In comparison many of the links cited (free PhP word cloud generator, etc) are either obsolete or of less significance. I understand the argument for inclusion shouldn't be "if X is included why not Y" but I am looking at *relevance* of the information and how it would benefit readers (I originally wrote the paragraph because it think it would be beneficial to teachers/students). I don't mind if you rewrite the whole thing and submit as your own but I hope some reasonable amount of discussion about artistic word cloud should be included in the page.

Sorry the links are broken, and I'll fix that later (need to go to the next class). Please either wait for the fix within 24 hours or just look at the source text.

Bryce.Samuels (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that looks like a reasonable amount of coverage; might even be enough to merit individual articles for the sites. Go ahead and reinstate the content (though to make it less likely that someone else will remove it on the same grounds I did, use third-party references when possible; using strictly primary references can make the content appear promotional. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I'll reinstate the content and improve the wordings to make it less promotional (in the next few days). On the other hand, you mean it would be okay to create a new Wikipedia page for "artistic word cloud"? Or even to create a new page for Wordle and a new page for Tagxedo? Bryce.Samuels (talk) 08:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of the hits I see for "Artistic word cloud" appear related to Wordle. I'm thinking that the phrase may not be enough of a firmly established concept to merit a page at this point. It would likely be challenged as a non-notable neologism. That could easily change in the future, though. I think a well-sourced article about Wordle would be fine at this point, maybe one of more of the others. Again, you just have to make sure it has non-significant coverage in several good sources (i.e., more than just a passing mention here and there). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

SUICIDAL ROMANCE wiki - DELETED why?!

Hello. Why You have deleted article about Suicidal Romance (band)? Rules approe bands if: one of the marks - Band has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster including several notable performers). Suicidal Romance released 2 albums and one EP on the most known industrial/dark electro labels - Infacted Records in Europe(http://www.infacted-recordings.com - exists from 2003 !!! ) and Metropolis Records in America (Metropolis has on their roster KMFDM, COMBICHRIST and others and they exist from 1995 http://www.metropolis-records.com/)... Seris7 (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Joe Evans

Hi, I was wondering why you deleted the article Joe Evans on 19:17, September 2, 2010. The rationale was because it was "meaningless, or incomprehensible" but I wonder if this was a mistake. You see, Joe Evans was a baseball player and this shows just how many things linked to the page. It was very unlikely it met the criteria for speedy deletion if this was in fact who it was. Thanks. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by mistake. Original article had been completely overwritten by garbage. Restored the good version. Thanks for catching that, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Q

It seems as though there are a lot of SPAs in MonaVie. Any idea what's going on there? Thanks! Location (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Haven't looked at it in awhile. My take was a lot of rabidly pro (probably distributors) and anti MonaVie folks fighting over the slant of the article. I stated my case (the BBB rating certainly didn't belong in the lead, and I wasn't sure if it belonged anywhere if that). I think the pro-MonaVie folks feel like there should be more "balanced" coverage (praise/criticism), but from what I've seen, there's not much praise among reliable sources about the company, the business model, or value/benefit of the product. A similar tug-of-war goes on at University of Phoenix. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I've seen one of the participants there comment in an unrelated Afd with a named account and with his/her IP address, but I think the sock-puppetry was accidental. There are so many SPAs in MonaVie that it's difficult to tell who is puppet and who is not. Oh, well. Thanks, again for enlightening me! Location (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Academics vs. The Amateurs

Jamie, if I get David Lynch to make an edit, will it be allowed? So if the best source to cite for a new edit is a blog, do you suggest not citing the authority or source? I mean, not all new information is first published in an academic journal, so what is a worse sin? Making an edit without citing the authority, or citing the authority that happens to be a commercial web site? Thinker649 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NOR, WP:Verifiability, and once again, WP:COI. By the way, be aware that while it's not forbidden to operate more than one account, we do have policies on abuse of multiple accounts. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the block! Biggest problem is that they tend to come back as another IP address and starts this all over again.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 23:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll put a few of those articles on my watchlist, maybe save you some time in the future. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem with these pages is that there is so many of them! lol They like to attack a bunch of them and it is usually hard to spot since they like to migrate pages.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 23:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Why my links removed ?

I can see my links removed and gave me some reason of spam If you check www.themobileinfo.com you will know we are regular publisher of mobile related news and do not wish to spread spam in any way. The link spam.themobileinfo.com however redirects to another site which we have no relation whatsoever. We also want to follow wikipedia guidelines, so after reading them thoroughly I am sending this message. Please check all the links I have added and also the site www.themobileinfo.com again to be sure that our site does not contain any kind of spam. Again, searchportal.cinformation.com that is redirected from spam.themobileinfo.com does not have any relation or link with us in in any way. Thanks for reading this, Regards - Arghya.

Read the blurb at the top of this talk page, as well as the warnings on your talk page. Also be aware of our conflict of interest policy which applies here as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That blurb www.spam.themobileinfo.com is not anywhere related to my site, I said it many times, please go to my website www.themobileinfo.com and check it. Also, I had added the news materials only, nothing else. I am very disappointed and sad, please manually go to my site and check yourself. Thank & Regards. Arghya139 (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No. See WP:SPA, WP:EL. I'm not discussing it further. If I see other accounts attempting to add it, I will blacklist it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

notability of LHHS alumni

Jamie-

I saw that you reverted my adds to the Lake Howell High School notable alumni page, namely Alecia Demner and Jared Hodges. The first was star/winner of a nationally distributed television show (Redemption Song), and is currently signed to Geffen Records, and the second is a five-time author/cartoonist, with three graphic novels and two books of art tutorials in print. How could they possibly be less notable than many of the other listings currently on the page, including several college-only athletes? I would like some insight into your judgment here.

Seanmercy (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Generally, if an individual is not notable enough to have their own page on Wikipedia, they shouldn't be listed. I don't see how either person you mention meets our WP:BIO criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Jamie-

The latter has a page for the series of books he's released- Peach Fuzz

Additionally, these three "notable alumni" remain-

1. Nick Calathes, basketball player for the Florida Gators, Panathinaikos Athens[1]
2. Pat Calathes, basketball player for St. Joseph's University[2]
3. Brian Effron, lead guitarist for Last Winter[3]

-despite the fact that each of the linking wiki pages appear to be vanity pages of one type or another, with editing histories dominated by one or two users/IP addresses. Should I then nominate these vanity pages for deletion, and then come back to this? It's frustrating that someone's success at self-promotion enables more validity to entries covering them in wikipedia, perpetuating that initial success. Seanmercy (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Last bit on notability- Jared Hodges had a chapter dedicated to him and his art partner in a book entitled "Mangaka America"- http://www.amazon.com/Mangaka-America-Americas-Hottest-Artists/dp/0061137693/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1286737468&sr=8-1 Completely independent from the company releasing their work, and a major release. Seanmercy (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to nominate any page for deletion. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFF. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

One Question

I'm really sorry for talking to you again, but I still have a question why you blocked my last account, Waglenic. I don't understand the reason that you said I was spamming. I do not understand. I would really appreciate it if you get back to me. thanks, --Pudge2Waglenic (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't block you for spamming. I blocked you for block evasion after your original account User:Pudge2 was blocked indefinitely for vandalism (the same reason your newest account is now blocked). If you want to be unblocked, you should make the request from your original account. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

OneClickPharmacy

Dear Jamie, Could we ask you to reconsider the blacklisting of www.oneclickpharmacy.co.uk as we had no intention of spamming the site, we are new at this am were simply trying to contribute to the wiki without realising what we were doing wrong, it led to blacklisting. We apologise for that, it will not happen again and we have now learnt how to publsh useful neutral material. I truly hope you dont penalise a resourceful site due to my silly mistake, I honestly did not even see the messages to me until after wards as we did not evne know how this all worked.

Apologies again, let me know what you would need from us and what I can do to get it removed.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.106.225 (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not, seeing that the first thing you did from this IP (which is now blocked) was add a reference to it again. Jeesh. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Entry For "Road Case" Content

I understand why you deleted the first entry that I made, because I placed an external link on a product name within my entry. I also now understand why NOT to do this in the future, so thanks for pointing that out. However, I re-vamped the entire entry, not only removing any external links, but making the entry completely objective and factual, and not subjective in any way. It read as follows:

In light of the high cost of custom road cases, individuals who would otherwise not be able to afford them have been building their own with a new product line introduced in late 2008 known as Do-it-Yourself Road Cases. DIY Road Cases provides instruction and technical support on building custom road cases. They also sell all of the parts and materials associated with road case building.

You then again deleted this, and admonished me with a warning regarding that my continued use of external links may result in the termination of my account. Yet, there was no link (let alone an external link) used within my entry. If you would take a look on the Internet, you will see that this product is in fact a major player in the "road case" industry. If you Google anything related to road cases, how to build a road case, etc., you almost always get them in the top rankings.

The reason that I made the entry is that I have utilized it myself several times, and know many others that have as well. My research on them has shown me that they have made a huge impact on the "road case" industry with their concept, therefore they have become almost synonymous with the term "road case." They have become a major part of schools, military, corporate, music industry, trade show industry, and many other facets that utilize "road cases" to protect items in transit.

I am also confused as to why adding this factual, and highly pertinent, information to the "road case" article (with or without links) would be a problem, as the article already references AND DIRECTLY LINKS TO some particular road case companies. The reference to DIY Road Cases simply adds the first very important development, and most significant element, regarding a "road case" that has come along since the invention of the road case itself.

Could you please offer any suggestion or solution for including this entry? Thanks.

Dino Marcelli Marcelliknows (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You can't include it. As the owner of the company, it's a blatant WP:COI; Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Owner of the company??? What are you talking about??? And that does NOT provide even the most remote explanation to my previously-made points above. 72.193.184.124 (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was still logged in, I just noticed that my tildes didn't take effect. Marcelliknows (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edit history (including edits that were deleted when you created an article about a non-notable individual) suggest that this is a single purpose account here to promote. Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle, period. There's nothing more to say about it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Koopa Dating

Hello, I noticed the content which I added was removed. Can I know the exact reason for it's remove, all I have really done was copy other dating sites who had done the exact same thing before. I started it briefly to allow for some time to collect all the information like the other sites have done, being a first time contributor I can see how this may have came off as some sort of marketing scheme, but it's just because the site is so new and we wished to document this company from it's initial stages and the latter. Please advice, and thanks for your prompt reply in advance as I noticed the content was removed mere minutes after I submitted it.KooDating (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just stumbled on this so I will probably guess that it is probably because you were promoting and on Wikipedia, we don't allow that here. If you want write an article from neutral point of view, then go for it, but please do not change the current Koopa page as it is used for linking other articles with the similar or same name.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 01:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I see. What would be the best approach then? creating a new page? I didn't remove any of the previous content just linked it to 'About|the website|Other' uses Would creating a new page and adding it to the already existing list be better?KooDating (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You always try to make an article about it, assuming the content justifies it being there. If you are asking me on how to make an article, then I am not really your guy since I am not really a long term editor myself and I usually just deal with vandalism.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 01:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh, did u say Koopa Dating?Bonelayer12864 (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

External Links

About your warning to User:Dave00327,[1] I realise that spam is a constant problem, and I also note that Dave00327 is not a new user. However, I still think its a bit bitey, as Dave has less than 100 edits to his name, and he has only added a smallish number of links to History channel webpages. I personally think most of those additions were justified, and pass WP:EL, as they link to pages specifically about the topic, and History channel is a major organization. (Specifically, I think they pass #3 in WP:ELYES.) Just wanted to let you know that you may have jumped the gun a little here. Thanks, LK (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem per se with History Channel links; I'm just trying to apply policy consistently, in that we don't allow single purpose accounts to do nothing else but spam links, regardless of the link quality. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. I've tried to explain to Dave that he shouldn't be adding a large number of links to a single source.[2] LK (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well-stated. I agree that it's not ideal to use the same spam templates against good-faith users adding links to reasonable sources that we also use against Viagra spammers. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Mensa

Hello Ohnoitsjamie … Having seen your reverts at List of Mensans, I thought that I would bring Category:Mensa to your attention for possible deletion … it is a nearly empty category that is not likely to be populated given the fact that WP:CONSENSUS was reached at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 8#Category:Members of Mensa … see also: Talk:List of Mensans#Deja vu all over again … I have never to a WP:CFD, and I don't think that IPs can start them.

I purged the few WP:BLP articles that included it, as most did not contain a WP:RS for membership … BTW, Rick DePiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was the article that brought it to my attention … Some Other Editor keeps trying to add it to both Category:Mensa and List of Mensans without any WP:RS, and a lot of the "References" looks like non-WP:RS WP:SPS links … perhaps you could give it a quick look as well.

Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.40 (talk · contribs) _{23:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)}

Helping people understand sentencing

Hi Ohnoitsjamie, I posted this message on the Talkpage for 'Sentence (law)' earlier but on reflection this seems the most appropriate place for it. A few weeks ago I added a link to a number of pages - including 'Sentence (law)', 'Judge', 'Magistrate', 'Magistrates' Court' and 'Crown Court'. The link was to an interactive guide to help people understand how judges and magistrates make sentencing decisions in court (i.e. the considerations they need to weigh up to reach a decision). The link has since been removed. I have looked at the terms of use and I don't see any article that it contravenes. The tool is, as far as I'm aware, in keeping with the ethos of Wikipedia of providing information and promoting understanding. Although the addition of the link was indeed promotional in the sense that it aimed to increase the chances of any user interested in sentencing finding the guide, I'd argue it was reasonable, relevant, unbiased, unobtrusive, and provided insight into sentencing which the content of the pages concerned was unable to cover. Try it out yourself and I'm sure you'll see what I'm saying. I'd appreciate if you would review your decision and allow the link to be reintroduced to all pages where it is relevant, or maybe let me know how we could amend our contribution to make it acceptable. AidanM31 (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read the blurb at the top of the page; also be aware of our conflict of interest and single purpose account policies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ohnoitsjamie, I had read it and have read it again. I have to admit I still don't see any conflict of interest. And although I understand your concern about single purpose accounts and self-promotion, this is simply not the case at all - it is public information aiming to help people understand how judges and magistrates make sentencing decisions. I look forward to your response. AidanM31 (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If you re-add it to Sentencing, I'll leave it be (but can't guarantee that someone else won't remove it). However, please don't canvass links all over the place. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. I am planning to keep it to the Sentence (law) article, as well as to the Judge and Magistrate pages. Do let me know though if you have any advice to improve the link. AidanM31 (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

what is the matter with my additions?

I found some interesting articles at papers that include The New York Times (www.nytimes.com) and The Faster Times (www.thefastertimes.com) that are relevant to Wikipedia subjects. One of these papers, The Faster Times, regularly links to people’s Wikipedia pages, which is how I began to be interested in some of these Wikipedia pages. I copied important and appropriate quotations and information onto these pages. Many of the pages I worked on say they need references. Yet you have been deleting my additions, it seems all of them. I can’t understand why since I was careful to add references for all of them, so it is possible for you to check the quotations and information in reputable newspapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryates999 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read the blurb at the top of the page; also be aware of our conflict of interest and single purpose account policies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Information that references an AFD is circumventing an AFD?

I added a section to the Village Voice page about the current Editor-in-chief making comments about the way content on Wikipedia is governed, specifically about the possible corruptions in the process. Because he was referring to a specific page which had benn deleted, the section noted that page as well as the talk pages for context.

But does the mere discussion of the event constitute "circumventing afd"? Because it's clearly not a case where it was being done to circumvent the page being deleted - if you have a legitimate concern over the validity of the section, that's one thing. But the section itself isn't an attempt to circumvent a page from being deleted. --illovich (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I was not the only editor who believed that addition was circumventing the AFD. By itself, the addition could easily be argued against per WP:WEIGHT. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Not being belligerent - is that discussion available anywhere? One of the things that fueled the assertion on Ortega's part is the way a decision like that appears monolithic on one person's part. So, I'm just curious if there's a talk page hat discusses the issue (since there's no discussion about it on the Village Voice:discussion page - it's just bang & a section is gone with a reference to a rule that doesn't quite fit. --illovich (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There's quite a long discussion in ANI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Blindtype

Why was Blind_type deleted? The significance is here, the most recent company acquired by Google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_Google

Also it is BlindType (one word)

75.7.5.116 (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Being acquired by a large company is not a WP:CORP notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:98.254.83.35

You recently blocked User talk:98.254.83.35 for block evasion, but you do not indicate which other account/IP he used. Could you give some details so I can respond to his unblock request? Thanks! --Jayron32 04:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I originally believed the IP was this user; now I'm not sure that was the case, but the IP above was definitely edit warring on that page (as well as other pages); see this talk thread. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I am fairly confident that this is not the same person. The edit-warring justifies a block, but perhaps a shorter one. Since the block has already lasted more than a week, can I suggest ending it? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Message

Hello Jamie. While I appreciate the important job you are doing and the tremendous amount of integrity you place on the development of the various aspects Wikipedia. If I have in any way violated any of your principal tenet's, I apologize and will be more mindful of what I present. It should be noted by you and/or your staff that I am a person that grew up in the midst of the creation of Rap and Hip hop. I witnessed first hand the many accounting's, stories and individuals who are quoted in the description of events. It is unfortunate you are not privileged with some sort of "investigative" arm that would be able to help you substantiate a great deal more, but then again, perhaps you have what you feel are adequate resources. All of the information I have provided is true and accurate and much can be substantiated by many of the principals s players that are set forth in a description of events including Afrika Bambaataa, the Soul Sonic Force, Jazzy Jay, Mantronix and many others. How might I assist you in uncovering unquestionable facts that would help foster a better understanding of the true nature of Hip Hop and it's main prognosticating characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennybeck (talk • contribs) 19:52, 16 October 2010

Please take some time to read our policies on WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. I'm not going to try to dispute your credibility, but the core policies of the project require that we rely on more than just editors stating "you have to trust me that I really know and understand this topic." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

What?

Thanks for biting my head off. How do I put hangon when you went ahead and deleted it the minute it was up? I'm still adding new sources that establish him as a well-known PUA like others in his industry so I'd appreciate it if you could restore the article and allow me a little time to fix this issue up. Thanks a lot. Pickupthing (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to repost and article that was deleted via AFD, you need to make sure that what you're reposting is significantly different. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

OK I will rewrite it completely, and add the new sources I have found and then repost it. Does this sound agreeable to you? Pickupthing (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but it will just get sent to AfD again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry

sorry x Samcurtis2010 (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Jay P. Greene

Did this article say that the subject was the head of a department of a major university? thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for catching that. I checked WP:PROF and saw that it was enough for notability and restored the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring it! (To be clear, meeting wp:prof/wp:gng is not necessary to avoid a7, of course.) ErikHaugen (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Your entirely unwarranted block warning

Don't you think you should try reading the blocking policy before leaving frankly ridiculous threats via inappropriate templates? Wnjr (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've already blocked several users for doing this; unblocks were declined. I will continue to block users who re-add the joke synopses. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not use the word vandalism when describing this kind of edit. It is not vandalism. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I just use the templates. It's been discussed on ANI, and the consensus is that it's a clear violation of WP:OR and disruptive. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive, OR, you name it, it's at wp:NOTVAND. Please use a different template or something to respond to good faith edits like this; do not use the word vandalism. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If you think it's good faith, you haven't read the ANI thread and looked at what was being added. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. What does "good faith" mean to you? I'm really concerned that you assume these edits are not in good faith. To be clear, I agree that the text should not be on the article, but the distinction between good faith and vandalism is hugely important. I see on the ANI that another editor expressed concern with your rush to give final warnings. Please take these criticisms to heart. ErikHaugen (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I get your point. {{uw-nor4}} is a better/safer warning/block template to use. I still think it's a stretch to call any of these re-additions as "good faith," but there is some debate over where the line is. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

CafePress WhiteListing

Hi Jane,

You have posted on my wall that I have already been turned down for CafePress White Listing. This is not a true statement. I initially requested removal from the blacklist and was asked to defer my request to the White List page and include specific pages that I wanted added to the White List.

I am doing that now. I feel that you are abusing your privileges as a Wikipedia Admin by not allowing me to request White Listing for Specific pages after I have been asked to do so in my request to remove the entire site from the black list.

Please put my post back up on the White List page and review and respond to each individual URL there.

WebTech02 (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The number of pages you are asking to be whitelisted is ridiculous. The /about page is reasonable, but there's no way that any of those other pages will be whitelisted. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for commercial advertising. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

removed a link

You removed a external link somewhere. Can you tell me which one? The reasons you gave don't fit any external link I placed on wikipedia. Please elaborate. BeriBeri (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed all the links you added; see WP:SPA, WP:COI, and WP:EL. Please don't add them again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Banned user Techwriter2B appears to be back this time registering an account using MY real name

Permanently banned user Techwriter2B (with whom you are well familiar) appears to have returned after a several month absence this time having registered using MY real name. I have nothing to do with registering this account which needs to be closed IMMEDIATELY as it constitutes and continues his/her egregious wikistalking of me. Centpacrr (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt action. Centpacrr (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Just learned of the pest's return. Thanks for the quick block Jamie. Eurytemora (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, folks, glad to help out. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on his/her current pattern of now making a "probe" roughly every two months, we should probably not expect to hear from him/her again until about Christmas/New Years. If I spot our friend popping out of his/her "hole" before that, however, I'll again let you know promptly. Thanks again for all your help and lightning-like response! Centpacrr (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

As expected, I see that the LTA is seeking to be unblocked. Specific evidence identifying unique similarities between the two edits made through the new sock and similar unique edits made earlier by the LTA through several other confirmed socks can be found here. Centpacrr (talk) 07:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Kuru nailed the decline reason. Brilliant. Carry on then, men! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Good job all. Jusdafax 01:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Unfortunately he's/she's still at it and has again "appealed" the block, this time with an even more fantastic fable. I think at this point I should take your sage advice (WP:DENY) by personally not posting anything more on the talk page at this point and instead leave the management of this issue to you and whatever other WP administrative mechanisms you may find it appropriate to call upon to deal with it. Many thanks for your efforts, and I'm sorry to have left you with such a mess. Centpacrr (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep - I see a new unblock appeal and even an implicit legal threat ("This account was registered by Bruce Cornelius Cooper. Any assertions to the contrary are libelous."). Eurytemora (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Good spam-fighting on the article SAT

I just wanted to say thanks for your spam-fighting work. No one ever gets enough appreciation, but today I noticed your fast reverts of spam on my watchlist, so I thought I should express appreciation to you. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate it, thanks, and keep up your own good work! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Chula Vista history

I don't know if you looked at it, but the CV history section I edited was all WP:Copyvio from the city website: [3]. Amerique^dialectics 01:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

[Golly]...that's all you had to say!. Fixed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Knots to untangle

Whilst editing the Saving Private Ryan article, I came across this mess of redirects: 506th Infantry Regiment was moved to 506th Infantry Regiment (United States), which seems to me to be needless disambiguation, since there is no other article for 506th Infantry Regiment. But, there are also redirects for 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment and 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment (United States), and all of these permutations are used in one or more articles. As you can see from the history, the bots have changed that redirect numerous times in the last 4 years.

To sort this out, my thought/intention is to place a db-move tag on 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) and move 506th Infantry Regiment there. Then, I will go through all the lists of "what links here" and change the links to point to the correct page. In regard to articles on WW II, 506th PIR should be used, since that was the name at the time, but a piped link can solve any redirect problems. When finished, this knot should be untangled. Your thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect there will be other 506th Infantry Regiments, so I don't see a problem here; that is, unless there is some de facto naming convention for these articles that I'm not aware of. Otherwise, I'll be happy to help out with the moves if the articles are protected. Let me know. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If there is a naming standard which requires the country name be affixed to the end, it seems rather silly and unnecessary. But, if it exists, where would I find out? I suppose Wikiproject Military History would be a good place to start. No sense moving anything if it will be moved back. I will check on it and proceed from there. Thanks! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

My reading of this guideline indicates the modifier is optional, not mandatory. So, as disambiguation is not an issue, I will proceed. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

In early 2007, as the Wikiproject Military History was starting rolling there was a long discussion of the issue and the consensus was that the country should be included, though in the Manual of Style it does refer to it as an optional disambiguator. The reason behind it is that we didn't want every such article to start with the country name (U.S. 1st Infantry Division) or end with it, or to have some start with it, some end with it and others not to have it at all. So, most US military units (Divisions and Regiments) were changed to use the optional disambiguator. While we can certainly change all of them (and other similar pages for Germany or other countries that use it), I think this should be discussed with the Wikiproject Military History at greater length. I've posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history to get some involvement, as the 506th article is simply the tip of the iceberg, not the entire issue. --Habap (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

youshouldhaveheard.blogspot.com

Hi, I just removed some spam for a book (http://youshouldhaveheard.blogspot.com/) which had been added by User:Mr Snoidy Toy as a reference. The link doesn't even cite the information added, and I noticed you'd already had a conversation with this user a year ago. He seems to be back, maybe you might want to check the promo links he's adding again? Markfury3000 (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, remaining links swept up. Thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yet another Techwriter2B sock - block request

Hi Jamie,

I’ve become aware of yet another Techwriter2B sock –user:WiscoNut[4]. I’d previously noticed and found it curious that none of his later TardyHardy edits were to Wisconsin-related articles.

Frequent edits to Wisconsin-related articles have been one of his identifying hallmarks. That's been heavily commented on when his socks have been exposed. I think he realized that this was a problem (in mid-August). So he apparently created a special purpose account for his Wisconsin contribs (WiscoNut) to try to avoid exposing the primary account he was then using (TardyHardy). Edits to Wisconsin-related articles from his TardyHardy account then stopped. The last Wisconsin-related edit from TardyHardy appears to have been on August 18. Contribs from the WiscoNut account first appeared on August 22. Though TardyHardy has quite a few Wisconsin-related edits, they're all from before this date - all subsequent TardyHardy edits avoid Wisconsin-related articles. With a few exceptions (e.g. List of colleges and universities in the United States by endowment), all WiscoNut edits are to articles that somehow directly relate to Wisconsin.

Most of the WiscoNut edits are to articles he’d previously edited under other IDs (particularly to articles he previously edited heavily). Many of the edits are to the exact same subsections of the articles he edited previously. Based on a quick scan of prior known IDs I come up with the following: 22 of 36 articles edited under WiscoNut were previously edited by Techwriter2B socks (also, four of the remaining 14 are actually correction of the same misspelled placename in four slightly different templates, and three more are recent 2010 additions to WP with little prior opportunity to edit). Another way of breaking this down - out of 54 WiscoNut contribs, 34 are to articles previously he previously edited. I’m pretty sure this is an undercount, since I wouldn’t recognize some of the IDs and IPs he previously used. Here’s a more detailed breakdown:

Techwriter2B socks I could recognize in prior edits of these articles – Sift&Winnow (the majority of prior edits to these articles were under this ID), IP 75.2.209.226, IP 69.120.182.161, IPs in the range 12.76.*.* that localize to the Stratford CT area (many of the specific IPs are listed on the LTA page), IPs in the range 64.252.*.* that localize to the Stratford CT area (many of the specific IPs are listed on the LTA page).

List of articles contributed to by WiscoNut with prior edits by a Techwriter2B sock: Reedsburg, Wisconsin (6 prior Techwriter2B edits), West Bend, Wisconsin(12 prior Techwriter2B edits), Fond du Lac, Wisconsin(17 prior Techwriter2B edits), List of people from Wisconsin(26 prior Techwriter2B edits),William Dyke(1 prior Techwriter2B edit), Door County, Wisconsin(5 prior Techwriter2B edits), List of University of Wisconsin–Madison people(33 prior Techwriter2B edits),Wauwatosa East High School(4 prior Techwriter2B edits), List of colleges and universities in the United States by endowment(at least 26 prior Techwriter2B edits), Camp Randall Stadium(7 prior Techwriter2B edits), Lawrence University(7 prior Techwriter2B edits), Appleton(4 prior Techwriter2B edits), Door County, Wisconsin(4 prior Techwriter2B edits), Big Ten Conference(4 prior Techwriter2B edits), Brookfield East High School(4 prior Techwriter2B edits), Wisconsin Lutheran College(2 prior Techwriter2B edits), Brookfield Central High School(5 prior Techwriter2B edits), Wisconsin(102 prior Techwriter2B edits), Columbus, Wisconsin(4 prior Techwriter2B edits), University of Wisconsin–Madison(64 prior Techwriter2B edits), Janesville, Wisconsin(85 prior Techwriter2B edits), Jerome Edward Listecki(1 prior Techwriter2B edit).

Some of these articles draw lots of edits (such that anyone with an interest in Wisconsin might contribute to them). But many of them are quite obscure and generally draw few edits (such that an unrelated editor with an interest in Wisconsin would not be popping up on all these same articles by chance) – e.g. William Dyke, Brookfield East High School, Wauwatosa East High School, Jerome Edward Listecki,etc. The prior edits by Techwriter2B are even showing up for articles edited by WiscoNut that have no direct connection to Wisconsin – e.g. List of colleges and universities in the United States by endowment, Big Ten Conference.

The article topics edited by WiscoNut coincide exactly with topic areas that Techwriter2B has primarily focused on (as described in the LTA[5] and my previous writeup on your talkpage[6]). This includes articles about religion, with a particularly heavy focus on Catholicism. The subtopics he’s tended to focus on include Catholic bishops, archbishops and cardinals (e.g. such as Jerome Edward Listecki), churches (e.g. Lutheran Church of the Good Shepherd, Eau Claire, Wisconsin), and Christian (especially Catholic and Lutheran) colleges (e.g. Alverno College, Lawrence University, Wisconsin Lutheran College). In articles about Catholic religious leaders, he especially tends to edit sections concerning sex abuse cases (especially those mentioning Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests), just as he has done here[7]. Another topic on which he heavily focuses are articles concerning psychologists/psychology (he once claimed to be a psychologist himself). Examples for WiscoNut include Insoo Kim Berg, Mindset List, Darold Treffert. He also tends to focus heavily on articles concerning Germany, German-Americans and notable individuals of German heritage . Examples for WiscoNut include Jonathon Brandmeier and his edit of List of people from Wisconsin (contrib consisted of adding German-born American actress Uta Hagen). I’ll even add that for some reason, a particular interest of Techwriter2B is Marathon County, WI (as I noted in the prior writeup[8]), and there’s even a Marathon County contrib here[9].

At any given date + time, contribs were being made exclusively from either the WiscoNut or the TardyHardy account (i.e. the timing of contribs from the two accounts never overlaps). Also, WiscoNut clearly isn’t a novice editor (advanced editing skills, and he’s citing WP policy such as WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI, etc.).

The edits by WiscoNut are very similar in style and content to those made by known Techwriter2B socks and are often to the same subsections of the article that he previously edited. Some examples: A particular focus of attention within University of Wisconsin–Madison, edited by WiscoNut and on multiple occasions by the prior Techwriter2B socks is the subsection "Party school image" – here’s the WiscoNut edit to this section[10], and here’s an example of a previous edit by Techwriter2B (as IP 75.2.209.226) [11]. (The alterations are analogous in each case. Other editors want to include information about recent years - e.g. 2006 - in which UW-Madison received the top "party school" ranking, and in both cases Techwriter2B/WiscoNut removes this material. In each case, he apparently looks up and inserts the most recent rankings. In each case references other than playboy.com, popcrunch.com, and cdc.gov are removed. In each case, the section is reduced to two sentences, with a first sentence being constructed to read that UW-Madison "was named number x" by Playboy "and number y by" Princeton Review.) Likewise, the edit to Brookfield Central High School contains similar alterations to the State Champions section of article – e.g. an edit by sock Sift&Winnow: 2006 Girls Tennis Team altered to 2006 Girls' tennis and 2009 Boys Cross Country altered to 2009 Boys' cross country; edit by WiscoNut: 1991 Boys' Gymnastics altered to 1991 Boys' gymnastics and 1996 Boys' Tennis (Andy Goetz and Justin Vinluan doubles State Champions) altered to 1996 Boys' tennis doubles. In general, Techwriter2B tends to makes many edits that simply change non-lead words in list entries and subheading to lower case, and WiscoNut shows the same pattern. Yet another such example – an edit to Brookfield East High School by Techwriter2B sock Sift&Winnow gives the edit summary "removed individual teacher name per WP:WPSCH" and an analogous edit by WiscoNut to Brookfield East High School gives the edit summary "Lay off it, Joe. WP policy WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI says students are not to be named in articles". As an aside, I’ll note that comments like "Lay off it, Joe" in an edit summary are typical of Techwriter2B (e.g. as noted in the User:75.2.209.226 Wikiquette alerts case[12]). It’s also very common for Techwriter2B edit summaries to claim that he’s removed "advertizing" or "promotional material" (this appears to be a major focus of his), while WiscoNut edit summaries include the following entries: "removed blatant advertising", "toned down advertising","advertising?","removed promotional material", and a second instance of "removed promotional material".

I think the above should be sufficient to withstand any unblock appeals (which I’d expect him to make). But I do have a lot of additional information and could always provide it if needed. Eurytemora (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, and thanks for the write-up, which will help during the appeal. Think it's worthwhile filing a check user request? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. CUs don't generally release IP information (it would be nice to know additional IPs he's using that we're not currently aware of). But given all the socks he creates, a CU for WiscoNut (and his other registered accounts) might potentially flag any unrecognized socks that are out there (if I understand how a CU would function - is my understanding correct or incorrect here?). Eurytemora (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking that now that he have two "fresh" accounts (WiscoNut and BruceCCooper), checkuser might be able to reveal other sleepers. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. I think it's a good idea. Eurytemora (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I would need advice on how to go about this. From looking through the CU information, I see three options – filing an SPI, contacting an individual checkuser, or contacting checkusers via the functionaries-en mailing list. For the purpose here – using CU to check for sleepers, based on the known accounts of an LTA – an SPI doesn’t really seem appropriate. The functionaries-en mailing list does seem like an appropriate option (though I’m not sure about that). Do you have any suggestions? Also, should I file the CU request, or would it be best if you filed it? Eurytemora (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

An SPI could be filed where we asked for verification of WiscoNut's identity (given the extensive behavioral evidence). I think you're correct that since we're dealing with LTA, the mailing list might be better. Might be better for you to make the request, as you and CentPacr are much more familiar with the LTA. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and file a CU request (I think via the mailing list). Eurytemora (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Jamie, an "Abuse Response" for Techwriter2B was opened on August 18, 2010, but as far as I can tell nothing further has been done with it since then except for my adding additional socks to the check list as they were identified. Is there any way you can get this process reactivated? Thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not particularly familiar with that process, but about though only thing I know we can do is continue to block socks as they appear. I believe that a CheckUser admin has been contacted regarding the LTA, but haven't heard anything back on it (see WiscoNut thread). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe that Eurytemora is on it now. Centpacrr (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I put in a CU request via the mailing list, but haven't heard anything back yet. Eurytemora (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Another new sock (Earlof Edits)

Instead of appealing, it appears that the LTA has registered yet another new sock "EarlofEdits". This account was registered about half an hour ago and the only edit so far is to Talk:Tim Zukas which reads:

6 Editing

You're an excellent copy editor. Don't be deterred by egotistical windbags. :) EarlofEdits (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This appears immediately below a posting I made yesterday that reads:

5 Overland Route

You have now three times removed material from this article without explanation that appears in the original sources. If you find something that you dispute, please discuss it first in the page's talk section. Centpacrr (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This type of posting and language usage are hallmarks of Techwriter2B as well as being wikistalking. Centpacrr (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Blllllloooooccccccckkkkkeeeeedddd. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks yet again for your prompt action. Centpacrr (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

As is the LTA's usual practice, he/she has blanked the talk page and thus removed the block notification. Centpacrr (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

LTA is back AGAIN now as with another sock (EarlofEditing)

The LTA has registered yet another sock today as EarlofEditing and is continuing his/her Wikistalking here. Centpacrr (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Sock added to LTA page. Centpacrr (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Surprise, Surprise. He's back again

Well, he’s back yet again. This time with the newly registered account user: ClassicCrust. Registered today. Started off by creating user and user talk pages, as with his two most recent accounts (EarlofEdits and EarlofEditing). He’s editing the exact same articles he edited under his Filmcracker account. Filmcracker contribs:[13] ClassicCrust contribs:[14]

He’s basically just reverting to the edits that he’d made under his Filmcracker account. A couple examples: Filmcracker[15] ClassicCrust[16] Filmcracker[17] ClassicCrust[18].

Yet another block needed. Also, if it’s not a hassle, could you do a rollback (to revert the ClassicCrust edits)? Eurytemora (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jamie. Eurytemora (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Coffee Culture

(Reposting from user's talk page): Hi Jamie,

Thanks for your note. Per your suggestion, I am raising the point here with you first. I'd like to advocate for adding information about the connection between coffee and productivity to the Coffee Culture article under the "coffeehouses" section. While the section references the coffeehouse as a social center, it does not discuss the ways the coffeehouse as grown to become a center of productivity as coffee has become linked to the workforce. The reference for this statement would be to a post from Anthropology in Practice from the award-winning and widely coffee series on the blog. It adds a valuable resource to the discussion on the evolution of coffee.--KTDC (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No, per WP:Reliable sources and a likely WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Request

This user whom you just blocked has already been blocked for adding incorrect information to National Film Awards articles, for sock puppeting and for personal attacks. I request you to protect the articles National Film Awards and National Film Award for Best Actor which were not very long ago protected because of him. I can't stand it any longer. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Will do. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'm starting to lose my temper on Wikipedia. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that other guy has some issues, I'd say. Feel free to contact me at the end of the protection period if it becomes a problem again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Protection on St. Bernard (dog)

Thank you for semiprotecting St. Bernard (dog). I wanted to let you know that both (or at least two of...not sure if it's a two-person dispute or not) the editors engaged in the content dispute are autoconfirmed, and one of those has just edited through the semiprotection. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Accidental?

Hi, did you mean to delete Sandy's comment? Just letting you know as it looks accidental but not sure.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, not sure how that happen; I just reverted myself since someone else had just made pretty much the same comment I made. Thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

My ANI report

You said to alert you if it continued, so here I am. I don't think semi protection would work, as 111.95.152.24 (talk · contribs) is now hitting other articles as well. A range block may be best. There are likely other IPs. I'll check tomorrow(really tired) and gather up any and all IPs I've seen making these changes, if you hadn't already.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind protecting articles, but that's a lot of articles to protect...I'm going to start blocking the IPs on sight and see if that helps (just blocked the most recent ones). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, here's the list so far:

• 111.95.136.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 111.95.137.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 111.95.150.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 111.95.65.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 111.95.62.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 111.95.62.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 111.95.148.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 111.95.152.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

May be related:

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

That's all I've found so far. Most of them aren't blocked, I think the only one that is is the one you blocked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

129.252.106.164

Just so you know, the IP is an IP sock of ProfessorJane. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 15:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Dennis Nolan

I would like to see much better and deeper coverage of this, as it would, if restored again, constitute the bulk of the article. I can defend it to our OTRS complainants provided we do a really good job of sourcing and writing, plus we include something better than WP:FLUFFYBUNNIES to even the article out. Some kind of history of his career and so on. Yes? Guy (Help!) 23:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I restored the first part, as there has been extensive news coverage (and legal filings) on it. I added another recent source mentioning it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

San Diego Mesa College

I went along with your expelling the college from Kearny Mesa, even putting it in Clairemont, per your suggestion. But a local claims it is in there in Kearny, I think I am going to remove it from Clairemont, but won't restore it until you get back with me. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This map on the city's website shows the west boundary defined by the 805 Interstate. You can see in this map that it's clearly on the west side of the 805, which puts it on the border of Linda Vista and Clairemont. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

courtesy notice

You're being discussed at ANI, for some reason. Heading 'Bad faith editing'. → ROUX ₪ 14:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone needs a new hobby. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been telling this LTA that for more than a year!! Centpacrr (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ayna Corporation

Jamie look at the discuss thread, and why I put the page back. The initial request to remove it due to the copyright infringement is not correct statement. The website that was quoted is actually copying from wikipedia and not the other way around. Please reinstate the page, and let us discuss in the talk section. A lot of companies check out Ayna Corporation information on wikipedia, and it does not make sense to ommit a company information without verifying the informaiton and giving me a chance to comment on the issue. --Aelfakih (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The copyright was only one issue; the issue that still remains is that the company does not appear to meet our WP:CORP notability standards. You'll need to provide multiple third-party WP:Reliable sources with non-trivial coverage to demonstrate notability. Do not restore the page again; either create it in your userspace, or take your case to deletion review. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha! Ok I will go ahead and read the notability standards, and get back to yo on it. Thanks for your patience. --173.166.97.201 (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

NASCA LINES

Hello Jamie

You just remove somtheing I put about Nasca Lines, its in regards a book I listed there. I just purchased the book, and I believe that its wonderful theory. It has been in national TV, Univision an all over. My mistake I believe was to list the book as reference. Can you remove the book and just list the theory, since its out there already and has been debated by several scholars.

Here is last weeks national TV special. http://www.univision.com/uv/video/El-Cdigo-Nasca-Emitido-21-2010-part-1/id/2846385654 http://www.univision.com/uv/video/El-Cdigo-Nasca-Emitido-21-2010-part-2/id/3213596085

Let me know, regards

Patricia Sifuentes Universidad Mayor de San Marcos Social Sciences Lima Peru —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.222.126.2 (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Being mentioned on a TV special is not enough for notability; see WP:BOOK. Also, the author does not appear to meet WP:BIO notability criteria. We don't add new "theories" to articles like this unless they are prominent enough to receive significant academic attention. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Jaimie for your kind reply, I just listed one TV special cause dont want to overwhelmed you, there are many more interviews about several things related to his studies, this gentleman has appeeard on front pages at the most important newspaper in Peru (Something like our Washington Post). I didnt put all those links, because I wanted to wait for your reply as for you to tell me what could make this guy Notably. He is currenlty working for the prime minister of peru, or something like that. Here are some front pages, look for yourself.

http://www.cabrejo.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=60:conectividad-imperial&catid=36:familia&Itemid=44

All those are front pages on Peru's Washington Posts alike. If thats not that notably, I dont know who can qualify.

Sorry if Im mistaken Patricia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.222.126.2 (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not seeing how he or is book would meet notability requirements at this point. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm Confused

I got a warning? I just created this account so I could comment on your talk post. I am a novice user and just noticed that it says my IP address has a warning for editing the "The Schwa was Here" page. I don't know what the basis of this complaint is, for as I previously mentioned, I just created this account. My IP is locked and such, and I do not know how it could have been used to edit other pages. Any possibilities? Thank You, Worried User — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsmarts333 (talk • contribs)

IPs are routinely reassigned. I wouldn't worry about it if it wasn't you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please check my Talk Page

Hey Jamie, Please check my talk page as you have time to resolve an issue. Thank you. Hawkeye55^Talk--Jeff Hansell 09:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The warning was in regards to a violation of our WP:Meatpuppet policy; in other words, you were editing on behalf of a friend who was blocked. Please avoid doing that in the future. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Jamie, Thanks for clearing that up. (I consulted the WP:Meatpuppet policy, thank you.) But I was not editing on behalf of my friend who was blocked. I originally posted the material on my own, and you can verify this from my original posting dates.

My friend holds a unique place in the history of pirate radio & community radio, and I was trying make note of this, and attempted to follow WP guidelines in creating the posts, by providing verifiable references. I also followed WP guidelines is making my edit BOLD, as is suggested, so that it would be easy to notice by WP editors and reformatted.

It is unfortunate the Bruce decided to involve himself in a "tug-of-war" after the fact, and without consulting me.--Hawkeye55 (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging the policy. I understand that your edits were made in good faith; feel free to remove the warning I placed on your talk page; we can consider the matter closed. You did misunderstand one thing about our WP:BOLD policy; it refers to making "bold" (courageous) edits, not edits using a bold font. Consult our WP:MOS regarding use of bold and italic text. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Hawkeye55 (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Removal of a minor edit

I am unsure as to why you removed a minor edit I made on the Trinity School page. I added two clubs, which are ranked as among the most active, to the list of clubs. I attend Trinity School and think that I am far better qualified then you are to decide which clubs should be on the list. I am a member of half of the clubs on the list. Please return my edit. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyuna (talk • contribs) 16:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well

I turn to you because you were the admin who blocked the previous vandal and sock puppet. He has a new account now: Wikivigilance (talk · contribs). Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there's another one - Rocktruly18 (talk · contribs). Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Mobile coupon

Why did you remove Mobile coupon , this issue was already discussed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.72.131 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it was discussed; and you were told not to use a blog as a source. Don't re-add it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

the blog is not the issue. we need to give reference as cite to that issue, unfortunately the only way is to reference is to major research but these are not public only can be quoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.72.131 (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The blog is the issue. It doesn't meet our WP:Reliable sources criteria and therefore is unsuitable to use as a source. Nothing further to say about it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

so how can you reference to something you can not published and only quoted? believe me i'll be more than happy to show the completed research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.72.131 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Do a Google news search most (but not all) of the links returned may qualify as reliable sources. This one or a similar one would probably qualify. For the last time, you can't add a link to your own blog, period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok.Are you doing the reference change or me ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.72.131 (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

DoceboLMS

Hi, I have seen that this page was blocked. Following Wikipedia rules I created an article and i'd like some hint and approval before creating the official page. Here is the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elearning.addict/DoceboLMS

There's no indications that the software meets our Wikipedia:NOTABILITY requirements. You'd need multipe reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage to the product for it to meet the criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, following the policies I have added references, especially this Open Source software is included in the Unesco E-Learning software list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elearning.addict (talk • contribs) 18:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's an improvement, but the notability is still a bit shaky, as the depth of coverage is pretty light. The page isn't "locked"; it was just deleted once. You can recreate the article with the new sources, but someone else may nominate it for deletion, in which case you may want to try to have more sources prepared. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks James, before publish i'll try to give more resources. The problem is that "Institutional" resources like Bersin reports and Gartner reports are locked and it's impossible to link. I'll find something more and give a message to you before publishing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elearning.addict (talk • contribs) 18:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Did it, I also found 1 article from the MIT newspaper and another from Linux.com. I'll also Add DoceboLMs in the e-learning software list (I saw you deleted the broken link I added, now the link will point to a page with contents. Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elearning.addict (talk • contribs) 19:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jamie, I'm asking your help because just after publishing another editor porpose to delete the article, also deleted my talk with him from his profile... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoceboLMS .. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elearning.addict (talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you're free to dispute the PROD tag by removing it. However, if someone decides to send it to WP:AFD, you can't remove that; you'd after to present an argument to keep at the deletion discussion that would follow. To avoid that, you should try to better integrate your sources into the article. To get an idea of what I'm talking about, look at the Magnolia_(CMS) article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

Jamie,

Question (for my future reference). The WP:Long-term abuse page has a cautionary note about making too much information public, since it can "obstruct detection" (i.e. permit LTAs to disguise themselves). "In general such information should only be shared with users of a high level of reputation." Is there any way to submit some or all of the evidence required for an LTA sock block via non-public channels (i.e. rather than on a public talk page), in a way that's accepted at WP (and, in particular, that will suffice in the case of an LTA who is likely to appeal the blocks). Eurytemora (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure: via email would probably be best. (Most admins, including myself, have an active email link in the "toolbox" area). Wikipedia:IRC is an avenue as well, though I personally haven't used it in along time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Orange

Hi could you please revert your move, you are an admin and you perfectly know that things here are made by consensus. You can check the article's talkpage and you'll find that this has been denied before. If you want to move the page to the "correct" place reach consensus and do not abuse your tools. Saying that the article used American English is irrelevant since you used a version of 2002. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 00:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it back. PhilKnight (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to remove this comment after I checked it again, sorry for that. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 00:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's OK; I acted too hastily in the first place after looking at the earliest version of Orange (colour) without checking Orange. My bad. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hey again. I'm here because the user you blocked keeps edit warring on the Gollapudi Srinivas Award article, using different IP accounts and names. Please protect this page in semi mode because this is really tiresome. Thanks for the help. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Do not remove verifiable, third-party, sourced information

You recently removed a section regarding the "synopsis" of Regulate (song) falsely claiming that there was only one blog source. As mentioned in my edit summary, there are multiple, verifiable, third-party sources that discuss the matter. (a quick Google search nets over 392,000 hits) It is wrong for you to remove such notable information from Wikipedia. I am going to put it back on the page. Do not remove it again. Rooot (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I will remove it again, and take it to the Admin noticeboard if you persist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You should just go ahead and take it to the noticeboard then. It is verifiable and notable and they will side with inclusion. You are deleting the reference unreasonably. Rooot (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Multi Brad5 came to apologize

The owner of Multi brad5 which is me didn't know of the vandilisment. I was hacked And I will change my password as soon as I can. Please remove the block because i repeat that i didn't know about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebrad 250 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Croydon's Future - The Big Debate

Hello Jamie

Sorry - I should have contacted you first before making my postings - I'm new to this.

As background, Croydon has 10 Neighbourhood Partnerships that are community groups charged with promoting "grass roots democracy". I'm a Vice-Chair of one of the Partnerships.

Over the last 2 years, Croydon Council has been crafting a 20 year regeneration plan. The planning process is now in its final stages of public consultation. Unfortunately, despite the plan being really important for Croydon, ordinary residents have been very apathetic about it.

The Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the Neighbourhood Partnerships therefore stripped the plan down to its 10 basic topics and created a user friendly website. We're a non-political organisation that has no commercial agenda. We put in the (unpaid!) time because we care about Croydon. Our website is completely apolitical - we haven't received a penny from either the Council, or any commercial organisation or political party to create it. Our sole desire is to get ordinary Croydon residents thinking about the plan and commenting on it. As you can see, the main feature of the website is the public discussion forums.

I wanted to make a link to this website on 3 relevant Wikipedia pages: Croydon The London Borough of Croydon Croydon 2020

Unfortunately, as it was my first posts, Wlkipedia feared that I might be a spammer or a commercail organisation. If you examine the website, you'll see that it attempts to be factual and impartial. The goal is to get ordinary Croydon people to have their say on the forums.

If you enter "neighbourhood partnerships, croydon" into Google, there are pages on the Council's website that explains what they do. The Chairs and Vice-Chairs include many eminent community minded figures from across Croydon.

Let me know if there's anything else that you need to allow this external link (http://croydonsfuture.weebly.com) to be made.

Apologies again for my rashness! I should have contacted you first.

Kind regards

William Croydonsfuture (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:EL, forums are rarely if ever appropriate links. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Request to restore Ookong page

About two years ago, I started a page about a team of student developers. I didn't know until today that the page was deleted by you according to A7 on 26 December 2008. After almost two years of hardworking, the team has made several big achievements this year and got many cheers from popular blogs, including Life Hacker, Make Use Of, APPSCOUT, .etc. The website http://ookong.com is chosen as Top 100 Websites of 2010 by PC Magazine. One of the products, Shopping Assistant is currently showcased as Today's Top Picks on the home page of Google Chrome extension gallery. Would you please restore the page? So that, I can add more information. Thank you.

Jay (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

thoughts?

I've yet to make up my mind myself on this AfD, but thought it might interest you -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 500 Most Influential Muslims--Epeefleche (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Without having examined all of the sources, I'd lean toward "weak keep." Weak because the organization that came up with the list may not be notable, but keep because it seems to have gotten a fair amount of media coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Harassment by IP

Hello Jamie, Thanks for that, I'd really appreciate it if you'd take action against the IP. It was becoming quite a nuisance. I have all reason to believe that that the IPs User_talk:59.92.35.29, User_talk:59.92.34.229, User_talk:59.92.64.14, and User:Hosur1 are the same person. Of course, it is up to you to decide any action against the IP. Good day! MikeLynch (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Heat

You deleted my addition on Heat because you believed that I added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. Please understand that the materials that I added is from another web site that is using the same copyright policy as Wikipedia - Creative Common License. I do not believe you can reach to such conclusion without checking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newuy (talk • contribs) 00:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I do believe you should not post large cut-and-paste blocks into and article, and instead integrate material with the existing article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

My Additions

Bold textJamie please get in touch with me concerning my posting of external link and a notable person. Lets come to a compromise. Thanx. camelot986@optonline.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camelot986 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. If you make further attempts to promote yourself or your blogs, you will be blocked indefinitely. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Debt management alternative topic

My changes to the Debt_Management_plan article are in line with the 'wikipedia rule book' and are true and valid pieces of information. There are alternatives to standard DMP in the UK and said article does not make that clear. My changes are to point this out. May I add that the Free or low-cost services topic does not contain citations to verifiable sources? But is still allowed to be left ‘untouched’ on the article. What do you want to see in my submission for DMP alternatives that you don’t condone to be advertising? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awolo (talk • contribs) 20:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

A neutral, WP:Reliable source documenting it the practice, not a specific example. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Link removal

Hi ... apologies, no spamming intended. In future I'll make sure the link is specific vs general to the topic. Janegca (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you'll stop adding it period. See WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Raruto_and_Lulu.com

Hi! I made an inquiry at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Raruto_and_Lulu.com but it hasn't been reviewed yet. Would you mind looking at it? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Mediawiki still indicates a block:

"The following link has triggered a protection filter: http://stores.lulu.com Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked. "

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll take another crack at it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright - please let me know when you've made the changes WhisperToMe (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Jamie, and thank you, Beetstra! WhisperToMe (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Help regarding sockpuppet

Hey,

I believe that User:Gamblatt is a sockpuppet of User:Abhishek191288, based on some nearly identical comments made on Talk:Deepika_Padukone#Pronounication_of_Padukone and User_talk:Sreerajarasa. I mean, these comments look quite identical, and I wanted to ask if these qualify as enough evidence to lead a sockpuppet investigation. I have nothing against this editor, but I believe that there has been much squabbling in the article Deepika Padukone, and these editors are just fuelling it. I actually had reported this user as a sockpuppet, but later thought I'd better ask a more experienced editor before reporting. Good day! MikeLynch (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Both blocked per WP:DUCK. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• I just saw that you blocked User:Abhishek191288; I haven't interacted with the user but I've come across him in mostly productive circumstances before and I don't believe that one edit passes the duck test as it could very well have been another user just copying the message. Not disputing that the edit itself would merit an NPA warning or block based on prior history (I'm unaware of the history), but I think an SPI should be in order for this one, especially since it's an indefinite block. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Caption

Facial (sex act)#CaptionCptnono (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Katrina Article Revision

Jamie, I appreciate your concern in getting into the factual error which I pointed out on the Hurricane Katrina article. You responded that my correction is not entirely supported by the sources, however, your statement could not be farther from the truth, as my correction was based upon the historical facts. I believe you will find, in researching the matter, that the timeline which I pointed out is correct, and is entirely supported by the data which is still available at NOAA's Hurricane Katrina database.

Basically, as it reads the article says this: "On the morning of Friday, August 26, at 10 a.m. CDT (1500 UTC), Katrina had strengthened to a Category 3 storm in the Gulf of Mexico. Later that afternoon, the NHC realized that Katrina had yet to make the turn toward the Florida Panhandle and ended up revising the predicted track of the storm from the panhandle to the Mississippi coast.[8][9]"

(The wiki article also states the contradiction: " On Saturday, August 27, the storm reached Category 3 intensity on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, becoming the third major hurricane of the season.")

I had merely offered the correction that by Friday evening the storm was still entering the Gulf of Mexico from Florida, and was not a Category 3 storm until Saturday, August 27th.

Climatological data on Katrina can be easily referenced here: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/KATRINA.shtml?

The report for 5PM Eastern time on August 26th is referenced here: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/pub/al122005.public.014.shtml?

It's a serious error in an article which purports historical accuracy to state that on the Friday, August 26th, Hurricane Katrina was a category 3 storm in the Gulf of Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philoska (talk • contribs) 04:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Take it to the article's talk page, as I said in the edit summary. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh

I take a short (two year) wikibreak and when I come back, you're still whacking the spammers. I don't know how you avoid insanity. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's oddly therapeutic. That, coupled with avoiding drama zones, does wonders for sanity. Welcome back! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Reverting pharmacy-related edits

Any objection to me reverting other unsourced edits by Itemroad2? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. The one I reverted several times was particularly POV. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The other edits might be true, but considering how much info has been added, I'm more comfortable with "rv: pls source and re-add", than adding { { fact } }. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Malaysia

This user helped promote Malaysia to good article status.

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For recognition of work on Malaysia. SilkTork *YES! 14:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a very useful, readable and professionally presented article. One of the best articles I've encountered. Now get working on building up other articles. Well done. SilkTork *^YES! 14:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Did I miss something?

Maybe...so what is it that I missed? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Single purpose, disruptive account posting the same crap over and over again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Maybe "annoying", sure -- but I don't see anything in the last 3 edits that would warrant an indef-block. Just putting that on the record somewhere (FWIW). Of course, you're free to disagree. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I based the block on the user's past history (ANI, earlier block, defiance, etc); user doesn't seem to be interested in contributing anything useful to the project. That said, I won't object if someone else decides to unblock them for whatever reason.

Makes sense :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

How is the C++ link publicity OR self-promotion? It does not fail to comply with the Standards and does not increase traffic (which was not the purpose anyway since it is a University page).

What I see is a strict control of a wikipedia article by a number of individuals, systematically undoing just for the sake of it.

Incidentally, there is nothing dubious in the link, in contrast with the Wikipedia article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplas (talk • contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:COI. If you continue to add it, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I can remove my name in the document and store it elsewhere, would that be OK then? Why should I be blocked? I don't see a reason or authority for that - the document is technically rigorous (based on the C++ 03 standard and the new C++0x documents alone) and untouchable from a COI standpoint. Are you in charge of this part of Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplas (talk • contribs) 15:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing further to discuss. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Pancakes

My change to the Wikipedia entry for pancake was 100% legitimate. If you read the John Elwes entry, you will see that I have a citable source. Please consider checking facts before accusing others of vandalism in the future. --Greenwald nathan (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a mistake on my part to identify it as vandalism, but it still doesn't belong in the articles; Wikipedia articles are not random collections of trivia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Awaiting a response

Hello Jamie, I am hopeful that I will still receive a response to you here. I still believe that your original block accusing me of "edit warring on a number of other well-sourced passages" was a mistake (both because you had practically the same amount of reverts and because the passages were not actually "well-sourced"), though I do regret editing the talk page immediately after your block. I have also read over the Wikipedia blocking policy and note that you blocked me while being engaged in a content dispute with me. Planuu (talk) 09:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You were edit warring with multiple editors who were reverting your removal of sourced content. You were warned several times to take it to the talk page first. That's the only response you're going to get from me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Multiple meaning one other person and you, operating on the mistaken belief that I was deleting sourced material. If my lack of communication was a problem, yours was even more so. Afterward when I deleted another section that referenced an unreliable source, you reverted without explanation. Although I had posted on the talk page, you decided to only engage yourself there once you issued a block. The reasoning that I had offered in my edit summaries was more than sufficient and in line with policy, and you would have realized had you actually taken the time to more closely analyze my edits. Because I was editing as an IP, I believe you chose to not give me the benefit of the doubt. If you refer to 3 reverts as edit warring, then you were also edit warring. Planuu (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Naveen Jain

I've already discussed the problems with each reference on the article talk page. Given that this is a BLP, and a controversial one at that, I'll be removing the content from the article if no one responds to my concerns. I'll contact the editor that added the material initially, hoping he'll help. --Ronz (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

OK...at a glance, the material didn't appear to be that controversial, but I'll check out the talk page before reverting again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Last I looked, Jain had quite a bit of pr on his philanthropy, including a personal website or two on the topic, making it very difficult for us to address the matter neutrally. --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Is Catalunya a nation?

Some days ago you deleted some information and a source which I had written on Catalonia's page ([19]), and now I would like to prove that your action was, in fact, an involuntary mistake. Next, I'm going to cite a little fragment of the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia, thanks to which you'll be able to see why I complain: In reflection of the feelings and the wishes of the citizens of Catalonia, the Parliament of Catalonia has defined Catalonia as a nation by an ample majority. The Spanish Constitution, in its second Article, recognises the national reality of Catalonia as a nationality. There's more information on this link [20]

Thanks for listening to me. Sa&Vilalta (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article's talk page, not here. I'm pretty sure that the issue has been discussed before. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Spam-whitelist common requests

As one of the more regular contributors to MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, I wanted to let you know that I've created MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Common requests, which aims to pre-empt some of the more common whitelisting requests, and have linked it from the page header and the editnotice. Feel free to improve. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Great idea; thanks for the heads-up! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bangalore

Hello, I would like to know in what way is the B&W photo of BLR showing its better architecture? It looks like a photo of nostalgia taken decades ago for remembrance. The color photo does show the modern architecture of the airport and is not faint like its BW counterpart. Infact there are several other photos of BLR and I did not replace this one with any of them as they are not good like this one. —Abhishek191288 (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Take it to the article's talk page, not here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions

Hi. You removed my edit to List of common misconceptions claiming that it was not a "common" misconception, even when I included a citation indicating that it is, in fact, common. What is the standard for establishing "commonness" for the purposes of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StepsTogether (talk • contribs) 23:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Take your concerns to the article's talk page, not here. That's what article talk pages are for. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

My concern is about your decision to remove my edit for a reason that seemed to have been addressed by my citation. If you want to have this discussion on the article's talk page, fine, move it there. But I don't just want to write this on the article's talk page and then have you ignore it there, since you are the one who is claiming to have a better understanding of what constitutes commonness. StepsTogether (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not addressing it further here. As I already said on the talk page, the article is too big as it is and doesn't need to list every misconception that exists. If you can get any kind of consensus on the talk page for it's inclusion, I'll leave it be. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

John Baker (artist)

Hello. I created this article yesterday, but it seems to have been speedily deleted by you, but I didn't receive a message about it. Can you let me know what happened? To the best of my memory, it was referenced, notable, categorised etc. From the reason given for deletion, I can't work it out. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It was deleted because it already exists here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a very similar article (where I took the information from) in Wikisource - users don't look there, do they? The article I created had been formatted as Wikipedia articles are, categorised etc. and slightly reworded so that it could be accessed by users and expanded by editors? I don't see this as a valid reason for deletion, and I'm unsure why I wasn't even informed of it. I'd like you to consider reinstating it. Boleyn (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:TRANSWIKI. I've created a redirect for it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, now someone else has nominated it for deletion. You can take it up with them; I can't find any consistency in the policies regarding redirects to other sister projects. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the speedy deletion was well out of order. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, works for me. I'm still a little confused as to how the whole transwiki thing works when it comes to topics at wikisource (wiktionary and commons are more obvious). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Pertaining to Youtube figures

Yes, u r totally right. I should not put random people who I thought had great stuff. Bonelayer12864 (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Harrassment

• Stop! harrassing me dude! This is taken from WP:EL "Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?" Get off my back man! --Riitoken (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The warning still stands. It's COI, pure and simple. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

DUDE!! It is NOT a conflict of interest to find and cite an external independent source directly related to the content of the Wikipedia article. STOP HARRASSING ME!!! --Riitoken (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Every link you've added has something to do with either you or software you've written. Crazy coincidence. It's pointless trying to explain policy to you (as numerous editors have attempted) as you seem refuse to see how any of it applies to your actions. A quick look at your editing history shows a pattern of 94.99% COI edits. If you want to dispute that, feel free to file an WP:RFC, which will simply draw more attention to your relentless COI self-promotion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What part of the following statement are you failing to understand? "There is no conflict of interest for any article edit as long as that edit has a relevent neutral point of view". All I did was cite some sources that did exactly that. And lack of sources was what I got beat up for in the Risk (clone) debate. So all I am doing is citing some sources dude - WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS ACCUSED OF NOT DOING VERY WELL. And now that I am trying to cite some sources, I am getting harrassed! Back off man! --Riitoken (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing further for me to say, as I've already said it a million times. I'm going to continue to enforce Wikipedia policy, like it or not. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a better place because of vigilance and you are vigilant I'll give you that. But just make sure you don't assume too much. I try to judge everything as if there was zero information about any editor. I try to judge each and every edit based on the actual edit itself. For instance, say if Sarah Palin made an edit to her article I don't need to know if it was her, I only need to know if the edit serves the article and the reader well and adheres to WP policy. If it was proven that Hitler had risen from the dead and channeling himself through all the contributors to the Hitler article, I would not care so long as the information presented was conforming to Wikipedia standards. Tattoo this to your monitor THE QUALITY OF INFORMATION IS INDEPENDENT OF THE MESSENGER --Riitoken (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What does Hitler have to do with a consistent pattern of self-promotion? Nothing. I'm not continuing discussion, as you refuse to listen to reason. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The entire point of the comment is to bring your attention to the fact that COI is entirely based on the NPOV of the actual edit and is NOT based on any other information whatsoever. --Riitoken (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• STOP harrassing me! We obviously disagree about what types of external links constitute spam. I am NOT a spammer for disagreeing with you. You've stalked pretty much every edit I've done for a week. You've accused me of lying. You've accused me of spam and non neutral pov. You've accused me of using multiple accounts and opened an investigation against me. How do I file a complaint against you? ... because for where I sit, you've definitely crossed the abusive line surrounding amins. --Riitoken (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

File all the complaints you want. That will just draw attention to your relentless self promotion and failure to abide by policies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes to virtual gifts

Hi, Jamie. While I appreciate your view that my addition of Giftorama to the virtual gifts section was considered an external link, the addition was based on the fact that, in my view, pertinant information was missing from the listing. When Facebook famously shut down its virtual gifts service last year, dozens of virtual gift services popped up, but only a handful have survived or are even remotely reputable today. You removed the listing of Free Gifts and Giftorama, which I believe was not in keeping with Wikipedia's role as a key informer, because Free Gifts (to which I have NO affiliation) is, presently, the No. 1 gift-giving service on Facebook, and was even offered to be bought out by Zynga.

Giftorama was launched recently and has been the biggest competitor to Free Gifts. No other virtual gift services were worthy of mention.

The reason only one reference, to Giftorama, was there was I had to figure out how to do it properly (as per the error message), and I was going to add the Free Gifts link when I figured out what the reflist error message meant. If the policy is not to have links, that is fine, but I really do think that the listing's value is increased by at least a mention of the two replacement services. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shambulla (talk • contribs) 00:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

See blurb at the top of the page regarding commercial links. Also see WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

How can I have a conflict of interest in Free Gifts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shambulla (talk • contribs) 06:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you don't. Most editors with very few edits who are insistent about adding links do have one. In any case, Wikipedia does not have a role of "key informer." I'm not discussing this further. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That's your perogative and it's too bad your experiences with others has closed you off to other possibilities. The reason I only edit now and then is because Wikipedia is usually spot on because editors are generally so on the ball and I rarely see errors in areas I know enough about to comment. Either way, I'm not fussed. I was trying to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shambulla (talk • contribs) 13:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

a little fish for a very old error

Plip!

See User talk:Ddurant100. You never actually did the promised unblock[21], and they didn't try to edit again until just now. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for taking care of that! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A Little Discussion. Please

Can you please explain what's happening? Also, if this is not the talk page or where ever I'm suppose to have a discussion, then please notify me. Thank you.

I requested that a page - that someone else in cyberspace created - be allowed to use a link that went to the original source (wikiwealth). That source was blocked. I was notified by a user of wikiwealth that the page url was blocked, so I requested to have it unblocked. The source goes to a legitimate company that has been around for several years. That's why someone created the page. If more content is needed, I'm sure someone will add to it. What more is required?

You mentioned that there are conflicts of interest, but I didn't create the page, had never known about it until today. Truthfully, I added one piece of information to each section in order to see the error for myself. I'm just here to sort this out. What's the harm in re-establishing the page to yesterday's edits, allowing the URL to be on the page and calling it a day?

Thank you. I'm just trying to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddurant100 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, there was no evidence that WikiWealth meets our WP:WEB or WP:CORP notability requirements, and the article didn't even assert notability; as such, it was speedily deleted. Your name matches the name of the owner of that site, hence the WP:COI issue. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you know how I can read the article, because I'm unfamiliar with the contents? I'd like to know the failings in terms of notability, but don't articles like that belong in some sort of sandbox where different authors improve it before distribution? Like I said, I never created it, nor know the person(s) who did. It looked like a legitimate article, but I don't remember what it said.

Can the owner of a website not request to have a URL reinstated? It was meant to fulfill the "reference" requirements, which I assume would have added to the notability of the article. I'm not adding it to any articles. I'm not using it for anything. I'm not interested in editing any pages. I was just fulfilling a user request. I'll leave the issue alone is that is a conflict of interest. Sorry man. I'm not trying to cause trouble or break any rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddurant100 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

We generally don't honor blacklist removals/whitelist additions of owners of sites. There's no point in restoring the article to a sandbox because it's not notable. I have nothing further to say about it.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. Thanks for reverting this message from my talk. I request you to delete that revision please. Why so serious? ^{Talk to me} 18:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Revision has been deleted. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

He has done it again here. Why so serious? ^{Talk to me} 18:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

ARBCOM about recent AN/I

There is an ARBCOM request which is related to an AN/I thread you recently participated. You may be interested in the discussion. --Cyclopia^talk 10:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Curmudgeon

Hello Jamie (Oh no!). I'm not sure who to throw this at so I hope you don't mind if I volunteer you. I discovered Curmudgeon redirecting to With the Lights Out. Isn't that a kind of spamming? Slightsmile (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't call it spam; I would call it a somewhat implausible redirect. Feel free to nominate it for deletion via WP:RFD. I don't think it's speedily deletable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)