User talk:Ohnoitsjamie/archive12

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to post an image of my penis, because if you check talk a few people agreed the existing photo is unaesthetically pleasing. JoshS18 (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you might have entered the wrong address or something, but i never edited that page. If someone used my computer to do so I apologize —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.149.121.131 (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not enter the wrong IP address. You're probably on a shared IP. If you're concerned about future warnings due to vandalism from other folks on your IP, create an account for yourself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. The discussion page and article page look the same. Is this complete (aside from notifying others)? I'm having a difficult time following the steps for some reason. DeeKenn (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why the Mumbo Token article was deleted under the "patent nonsense" criterion. It clearly is not patent nonsense, as it has helped many people find all the Mumbo Tokens in Banjo-Kazooie. Articles should only be labelled as "patent nonsense" if they are NONSENSE.

However, I do agree that it wasn't in a suitable format for Wikipedia - but that can be improved via copy-editing, which I was leaving to other people to do.

Thirdly, the copyright of the article is owned by ME. I wrote the original document, and have all previous versions on my computer. If proof is required, I'm sure it can be provided, but if you email the address on the document (no matter where it is found online), you will reach me.

I hope this can be resolved quickly, because quite frankly, the article being deleted because it is "patent nonsense" is insulting. Avengah (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a pretty clear violation of original research, and even if it wasn't speedied, it easily fail an WP:AFD nom in it's current form. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with some of that, but one of the points on the AFD page says that an article should be improved rather than deleted, if at all possible - which is what I meant when I said people could copy-edit it. It's not original research, because things learnt by playing a video game don't have to be cited as per Wikipedia policy, and the article is on GameFAQs, IGN, Supercheats and several other places. Finally, we had a discussion on Rare Witch Project whether this should be on Wikipedia or not, and people voted YES by a margin of 5 to 2. Avengah (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Reliable sources. If you post the article again, it will be sent to AFD. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for note, I've put a final warning tag on this user's page to back up an ARV report if necessary. Which I suspect will happen. Cheers. Booglamay (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page deleted (again), user indef blocked. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen it - seems like you were over on their page as I was on yours! Nice one anyway! Booglamay (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OhnoitsJamie, wow you definitely act fast ;-) Anyways, you recently removed a link I added to the social network page as spam. If you really feel it is spam I completely understand, and I wont argue the point. The link was for collaborationboard.com and yes, I will admit it is a bit of a plug for my project. However, I do think it would be useful for people interested in different types of social networks and the ambitions of my project don't resemble any other social networks I have seen yet.

If your interested, please at least take a look at the site. I have no intentions, at least not at any time in the near future, to turn any kind of profit from the project. However, if you still feel that adding the link to wikipedia would be considered spamming I respect your decision and that was not my intention.

Justin534 (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the conflict-of-interest issue. If your project becomes popular and achieves more notability, I imagine someone else will create an article for it. Regardless of whether the project is for-profit or not, you can imagine who saturated the page would become with links if everyone could add links to their own projects. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. I hope you understand I wasn't intentionally trying to spam wikipedia, but I am curious how on earth did you catch my edit so fast? I have always heard it is a major issue that anyone can wreak havoc on wikipedia entries - but you caught my edit literally less than two minutes after I made it. Just curious. Well at any rate I guess I will see if I can contribute to various articles on social networking. I noticed the article for business networking isnt currently linked to any other entry - maybe I'll have to fix that ;) Do you know how I can best introduce myself to writing and editing articles on wikipedia. On the left navigation pane I dont see anything that might resemble a user guide for new wikipedia editors/authors. Thanks. Justin534 (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being cool about it. I added a welcome template to your talk page that has lot of handy links; hopefully that'll help. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice, I am really a new user. To me, however, the page as it is is a disguised attack page. There must be a huge amount of neutral info on what this guy's past, what he has done, what he has said on TV, etc, besides these comments to critique his hair or desire for money, otherwise he would not be in my living room every night. That is why I put the attack tag in there as it says on wiki attack page advice. The says little about him in a biographic way and I think should be a stub until someone can write it properly (not me). Your advice please.Dberger (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per our WP:BLP policy, I removed two unsourced statements. The rest seemed reasonably objective or sourced (though you or others may disagree). If you have further concerns, try posting them on the talk page of the article or adding other improvement tags. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to make sure you close them when you delete the article. I have just closed two discussions (here and here). asenine ^{say what?} 06:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice they were up at AFD. Thanks for catching that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out - appreciated. However can you please make sure you log any additions as is says on the page along with some rationale. Finding anything about it in a months time will be hard & in six months will be effectively impossible. Many thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, will do. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that the word "zoophilia" is pronounced "zoo-o-philia" and therefore should be spelled "zoöphilia". How is this not so?

This is an English-language Wikipedia. No dialects of English use umlauts. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that I was allowed to remake this page. Could you read [this conversation] and explain why it's been deleted? Ryan.rogalski (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can recreate it, but I will send it to WP:AFD if I don't feel that it meets the reliable sources and non-trivial coverage criteria of WP:MUSIC. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, "Seraj" is one of the few famous traditional Persian singers. He has millions of fans. But you simply delete the entry! Why do you do this!?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marashie (talk • contribs) 16:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article did not assert WP:MUSIC notability !?!?! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello i'm a new user posting in wikipedia so it's kinda hard for me to make a new article. Still you deleted my debut article (a biography on Antonio Güell Ortega) twice. I'd like to ask you for advice to improve my article in order to make it good enough for wikipedia, please. By the way i'm sorry bout the previous postings that didn't go to the bottom of the page, it's just that i wasnt sure of how to post there. Im so sorry if I caused you any trouble.

Just read your answer on my talk page and I wanted to say thanks. So basicly what i have to do is to demontrate the importance of the projects this guy made and find some web evidence about him working in those projects right?

Essentially, yes. WP:BIO lists the notability criteria (as well as more specific notability criteria for some areas, likes academia and the arts). Also see WP:Reliable sources for info regarding good sources. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it fits in that paragraph as it shows that humans find dogs amusing and loving. But the main purpose of my adding it is that it will add more interest in reading the article in the minds of the dog lovers (or the person who is reading the article). If an article has something interesting which is related to it then its good. Its not necessary to add only serious information to an article. After all humor is also important if its encyclopedia or a blog etc. Everything is information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryroger (talk • contribs) 23:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, humor is not really appropriate for an encyclopedia (unless it's in your userspace). A blog is another story. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OhNoItsJamie, I am a completely new user (run the Check user tool), and decided to make my first contribution to Wikipedia in an article on the Qingdao International Beer Festival because I had so much difficulty finding information elsewhere and wanted to gather my findings for others to look at if they were interested in information on this event. The link you referenced in your message provided the only English website with information on the event, so I tried to cite the information. All other information came from Chinese language (which I am a student in) websites. I am new to Wikipedia, and I hope my contribution is considered helpful. I may have tried to add an undesirable link (of which I have absolutely no affiliation to), but I'm not feeling the love of the Wikipedia community on my first attempt to help out. Thanks for your time. -Jeff007s

Hi Jeff. I appreciate your kindness. I wish you well in your endeavers to explore China, a country that I would certainly like to visit someday. That said, you've apparently had no trouble gleaning information relative to your trip without the aid of Wikipedia. I'm sure you can enjoy your trip regardless of whether thatsqingdao.com and related sites are permantly blacklisted from all wiki sites. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw your !vote agreeing with my stance on Bimini Bay. However, I now realise my position was flawed, and have changed my !vote accordingly. As it could look like you are agreeing with my new vote, I thought I had best let you know and give you the opportunity to modify your stance. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Hershey sign.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Hershey statue.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been a wiki lurker for quite some time before I began editing. One thing I've noticed is that often, names are redacted to protect the privacy of little-known people. One example is the star wars kid page (please forgive my lack of wiki-fu). After seeing the use of name redaction on that page, I decided to apply that to the above-mentioned page. However, you reverted my work explaining that redaction was not appropriate. I am confused about how BPL applies in what I thought were two similar situations, and to be a better editor, I would like you to explain how name redaction is appropriate in the star wars kid page but not in this page. Thank you! BigScaryGary (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that it'd been redacted from the Star Wars Kid page. I agree with the other posters that her name has become an integral part of the case, and is verifiable via online sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So then what you're saying is that in neither case, it would be appropriate? If so, it makes a lot more sense. Thanks for your help! p.s. what would be an example of appropriate name redacting, if any?BigScaryGary (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any appropriate cases for "redacting." On the other hand, if Farber's name were only known via blogs or hearsay, it would be omitted on the basis of lacking a reliable source. I'm not sure why the Star Wars kid's name was redacted; could have been the result of an WP:RfC on the matter. Having just looked at the talk page for The Star Wars Kid, I see that someone mentions the following from BLP: Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. It is argue that policy could apply to Bryant's accuser. However it looks dumb to replace her name with [REDACTED]. Replacing her name with "accuser" or something similar is more elegant. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this could be put on the talk page for the article, it might spur multiple editors to discuss whether removing the name is appropriate. Most importantly, I appreciate your assistance.BigScaryGary (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in what way does the website priory-of-sion.com fall short of reliable source??? It contains material used by authors and documentaries and was used on WP for years. It only got blacklisted through politicial reasons, not content. Thanks, Wfgh66 (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's self-published. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disturb you again with this but i havent found much evidence on web about Antonio Güell (i'm writting a biography about him). All i've found is a page that gives information about a conference the guy will give about his participation at his most important project and it's in spanish. Thats not accepted as enough evidence right? i'll leave the page to you so you can send it to someone that speaks spanish and tell me ok? http://www.universia.edu.ve/home/prog/display_noticia.php?cod=195&img=si also i've found blog pages where he's named but thats not good enough either right?

No, blogs usually are not considered to be reliable sources. There are plenty of engineers (from all fields) who speak at conferences; most of them are not notable. To pass our notability criteria, you should be able to find non-trivial references to him in major media publications. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie-

I looked and cannot find a definite reason why the link to LexusOverride.com was removed. If it was the Lexus postcard, perhaps a direct link to the Lexus Owners' comments might be acceptable? The purpose of the site is to educate car shoppers about the limitations in the Lexus Nav system before they buy their car, so that they do not share the frustrating experience of the owners who leave comments on the site.

If the comments page is acceptable, then this is the link: http://lexusoverride.com/comments.php

Thank you for your time. 74.62.26.51 (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you deleted my external links -- I think having information about a person's official bio is significant and useful. Someone could click on the links I have added if they are looking for information about how to contact someone for a lecture at their school or organization. Please stop deleting. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcochs (talk • contribs) 18:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given the reasons on your talk page. If you continue to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disagree, but Mcochs arguably improved the article on Hanne Blank, fixing a non-working bio link that was already there (apparently the old link moved) with the currently working link. I'll leave it to you whether you want to unrevert your revert of that edit because it's not my purpose to get into a revert war with anyone, but it might serve Wikipedia's purpose best to unrevert at least that edit. --216.152.101.66 (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a section in the Ninja talk pages called "historical accuracy??" which is where I originally proposed my change, which you recently reverted. I'd like to discuss my changes there please. Pmw2cc (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See our policies regarding WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a new image was uploaded recently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bighen.jpg

To me it appears scanned (possibly from a magazine - have a look at the bench pressers' white shirt, see how the image from page behind it bleeds through?). Then I noticed the exact image on the subject of the article's website. http://www.bigjameshenderson.com/images/pic6.jpg

Obviously we're to assume good faith here, but how in general would an admin verify proof that an individual does indeed own the right to distribute a picture? I'm just curious. Thanks. --Yankees76 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I see that you have vandalized my page by deleting my image and giving false reasons for doing so. Good for you. Did you get off on it? Here is what we are going to do. We are going to take this to the next level. Now, since I am new here, I am requesting that you, as an administrator, instruct me. What do I do with an asshole like you? I have a conflict with you, and I want the people who gave you admin privys to know what you have done without any regard for due process. It is in your best interest, if you want to keep your little admin title, to now take a step back and point me to the right direction for my complaint.Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continue your incivility and you'll find yourself blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The version you recreated is terrible - full of how-to, pointless language, attributing feeling to the dog, terms like "going potty." C'mon. If you have a probelm with the rewrite, change it, don't go back to the terrible version. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Not sure how that happened, probably trying to figure out which IP the spam originated from and accidentally reverted to an old version. Should be fixed now. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new wikipedia user, I am not sure what I did wrong with my last talk entry on to your page. I apologise for any mistake and would be grateful if you would respond to my points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susievet (talk • contribs) 19:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed because you didn't follow directions (new comments are to be added at the bottom of this page, as noted numerous times). As I noted on the House rabbit talk page, Wikipedia is not a vehicle to promote a website you are affiliated with that sells pet insurance. Please do not add the link again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie, Sorry about the incorrect entry. Thank you for your feedback. Vet Help Direct does not sell insurance, we have an insurance directory which is our only form of advertising on the site, there is not a ban on links to sites that have reasonable levels of advertising as far as I am aware? Vet Help Direct fulfills the following criteria: • Is it accessible to the reader? • Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? • Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?

I feel a reference to Vet Help Direct could help as this paragraph is not a comprehensive list of symptoms that require veterinary attention:

Rabbits should be taken to the vets if ill or injured.....etc

It is not possible to write comprehensive lists of symptoms that require veterinary attention. Vet Help Direct should be added as a reference under the following Wikipedia guidline:

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

Would it help if I added the references for Vet Help Direct to provide evidence that it is a credible site and the only site on the web to do this job? References would include: The Veterinary Times 16/10/06, The Veterinary Review 04/07, Miles Mendoza 16/1/07, The Times 4/10/06, Country Life Magazine 13/12/07, Dogs Today March 08, Your Dog Magazine Feb 07, British Horse Society E-News December 07, Your Horse Magazine 6/12/07, Horse and Pony Magazine3/12/07. Vet Help Direct is supported by the British Horse Society and is working with the Kennel Club.

If you really don’t think it should be added in the content maybe I could add a sentence to say this not a comprehensive list of symptoms that require veterinary attention and put the link in the external links section. What would you think of that?

Look forward to your reply,

Susievet (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to apologize for making bad edits to cat. I will do it to dog instead.

You'll win a free vacation if you do. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i need contexts JeanLatore (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i was talking about context for the quote. I don't think you understand how to quote the great authors properly. JeanLatore (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current version if fine. I think I've been around long enough to know how things work here. Your talk page speaks for itself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how is that copyrighted? I know the person who drew that. JeanLatore (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing a creator does not give you legal rights to that person's works. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are admitting that you had no idea of the copyright status of the image when you deleted it. JeanLatore (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was an obvious copyright violation. Period. Please don't do it again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it obvious? I told you I know the person that created that image and he gave me permission to use it. But i'm more interested why you think that it was "obvious." JeanLatore (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you don't know why it is "obvious." That's what I thought. JeanLatore (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you re-upload it without providing proof that you have rights to do so, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, so you admit that it wasn't obvious. Second, i will upload it with a note from my friend saying its ok; thanks. JeanLatore (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still say it's obvious. A note from your friend is not sufficient proof, unless your friend is Robert Iger, the president of The Walt Disney Company. You obviously snagged the image from here, where it is clearly marked as being copyrighted by Disney. I think that fits the definition of "obvious" pretty well.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie, can you tell me why it is okay for Wikipedia to have a list of pharmacies that has been posted for months or longer, and not ALSO have a list of online pharmacies? It doesn't make sense to allow one, if not the other, or, for that matter, to allow lists of any type if you are going to not permit one type of list? What gives? If Wikipedia is going to have rules, it should follow them throughout, not pick and choose when it will enforce them. Myk60640

Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle. Online pharmacies, if they meet notability guidelines, are listed along with other pharmacies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is to request from you that if you ever see my user page, please don't revert it to its old, ugly version:). Cheers, --Gulmammad- 03:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you given threathening message to me?--203.81.202.148 (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the timestamp of the messages, you'll see they were in regards to vandalism edits from August of 2007. The warnings were directed at whoever was using the IP at the time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jamie: Thanks for you concern- by referencing the Colfax book published 20+ years ago I was not interested in promoting it in any way; I don't know them and have no interest in this; however, it is a famous book on the subject of troubles that home schooled student face when making application to college; without that as a citation, documentation is difficult, since each college makes it own choices and has its own policy. In a revision I simply referred to the book, but that see as "promotional" was not liked either!!! Any suggestions? Snow555 (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it wasn't so much that book, but focusing on two subjects of the book that made me suspect a conflict of interest. However, I see that you're actively engaging in discussion on the talk page on how to improve the article, I'll drop that suspicion and leave you and the other editors to work out article improvements. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie, I noticed you restored Image:Vagina-anatomy-labelled2.jpg. My objection to this image isn't one of prurience, but that it's unprofessional and inaccurate in the extreme: it has spelling errors. I submit that having no image at all is better than having an image that is actively wrong. Can't we find some other image that at least doesn't contain outright errors? Nandesuka (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine....I just noticed that the one I posted has the same spelling error. I'm not too picky about the photo, as long as we have at least one for each anatomy article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of that, i removed chat box from my user page(User:Jainsarthak), but please don't remove the convocation list 207.171.180.101 (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userpages are not to be used for non-Wikipedia purposes. Period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it and you still blocked my account, can I ask an explanation for this?122.167.96.89 (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You put up a redirect link that's unrelated to Wikipedia. I already explained that Wikipedia is not free web hosting. Do it again and I'll block this IP. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok understood now. :-) 122.167.96.89 (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why did you revert this entry? As far as I know it is true that Levitt worked on the Economy of Prostitution. Was this just a mistake or do you have conflicting sources? Greetings --hroest 03:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reversion was mostly a function of other problematic edits the editor made around the same time period. I didn't see prostitution mentioned elsewhere in Levitt's article. Though I see the Levitt has done research on prostitution, I haven't seen any evidence that he is best known for that. In most countries prostitution is a crime, and crime was already mentioned in that section. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the interpretation can be difficult, he definitely has done work on prostitution but also work on crime that was unrelated to prostitution. I would agree that he is NOT most know for his work on prostitution (although that is hard to judge) but it is definitely an omission if his work on prostitution is not included in the article. So probably somebody should work on that in order to include it. Greetings --hroest 03:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's worth mentioning in the article. Perhaps someone who is much more familiar with his work could say whether or not it's worth mentioning prostitution in the lead. Cheers,OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they are still mixing in other purebred dogs makes them NOT A BREED, that, along with the dual registration of a single dog as multiple breeds and the non-existence of form and function. Their lack of recognition by ANY reputable Kennel Club is real, but secondary. Cockapoos are not breeds either - no matter how much their owners wish they were. Furthermore - the reality is that they have nothing further to offer the Wiki entry of the Mastiff. There is no reason for them to be listed under the "see also" section (expect for the AMs benefit)...The woman that created this mix has done a huge disservice to the Mastiff breed and the link only goes to serve her continued marketing of this mix based on her bastardization of and claims against the Mastiff. If you were to list all the breeds (real or not) that claimed to include the Mastiff in the mix the list would be endless - that is not a basis to list them there. Furthermore, The AM is not listed on the Anatolian page - the other dog that is "said" to have been part of this mix (I'm sure the Anatolian people would not be happy if it were) - so why here? Mastiffowner (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, you are incorrect to assert that, like cockapoos, parents are different breeds. American Mastiffs have been bred long enough to breed true. As I'm sure you know, many breeds started out as hybrids. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you are the one that is incorrect in this instance. The use of Mastiffs as recently as 2 and 3 generations back prohibits the AM from being any real BREED...nevermind BREEDING TRUE. To be a recognized breed you also have to have form, function, and recorded/documented history. If they were a breed, there would be no need to register a Mastiff as an AM and use it in the breeding program. Again, I ask, what purpose does the AM reference serve on the Mastiff page? See also why? If it's b/c they are said to be made up of the Mastiff why aren't they listed on the Anatolian page? You seem a little biased on this subject. There is no reason for them to be listed as a See Also Reference on the Mastiff page - unless the purpose is for their favoritism to link them to the Mastiff breed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastiffowner (talk • contribs) 20:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

b/c you said that it was not referenced, but it was... it was a direct quote from a washington post article (and i referenced the article)... i might have violated some sort of formatting rule, but the reference was there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jshuga (talk • contribs) 21:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not sufficient so say where it's from. You need to provide a full citation for the reference, including a link to the article. You may also want to read our policy on neutral point of view, which your additions also violated. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i provided the date, author, newspaper and said where the quote started and ended. the only sentences that were mine were the first one (that said they dumped PCBs in a river in Alabama for decades) and the last one, that said solutia was created to assume Monsanto's debt from various litigation and that it subsequently went bankrupt. both of those are plain facts (the fact that solutia was created to assume monsanto's debt is already on the monsanto wiki entry, and the the fact that solutia went bankrupt is on solutia's wiki entry)

i know that my formatting wasn't perfect (i don't know how to add citations well) but i followed your links regarding citations and it said that others would help me format them, if i didn't know how to get the formatting perfectly... i thought maybe this is where someone like you would come in to help (rather than delete my entry)... google Monsanto, PCB, Alabama... what i am trying to add is a plain and simple fact, they were found guilty... the little bit that is currently there regarding PCBs in topsoil in Alabama is completely insufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jshuga (talk • contribs) 21:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

by the way, here's the link to the washington post article... can you help me to reference it correctly and improve my edit of Monsanto's page? if you think it's biased, help me make it more neutral, but it's tough to be neutral about what they did. internal company memo's show that they had knowledge of the high toxicity of PCBs for decades and that they continued to dump them in those Alabama waterways simply for financial gain.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A46648-2001Dec31

from the link you provided on citations: "If you don't know how to format a citation, provide as much information as you can, and others will help to write it correctly." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jshuga (talk • contribs) 22:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now. Almost all of the text you added is cut-and-paste from the Post article. That's a copyright issue. Quoting a few sentences here and there is OK, but it's rarely a good idea to quote multiple paragraphs, even if you provide the source. That proper way to add this content would be to start out the section with something to the effect of, "In 2002, the Washington Post reported that Monsanto had hiding the fact that...etc. etc." From there, you'd provide a brief npov summary of the article's allegations. Quoting a sentence or two would be fine. If Monsanto reponded to the allegations, it would be appropriate to include their response. The Monsanto article has lots of good examples of how to present this kind of information. I'm not trying to "censor" bad things about Monsanto; many large corporations have their share of negative press. It is important to adhere to the principles of undue weight and not let the article degenerate into a "let's bash Monsanto" free-for-all. I know the WP:CITATION article is quite long, but near the bottom there are plenty of examples that should make it easy to construct proper references. It took me awhile to memorize how to write references. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's true... i deliberately went with cut and paste b/c i did not want to seem biased. i figured if it was npov enough for the washington post, that it would be npov enough for wiki. I also figured that a direct quote would be the best way to assert that these were real facts. Thanks for your help, i'll spend more time on it when i get a chance and try to get it up to standards. I do think that i put it in a good place (under crimes, near the UK dumping stuff) b/c it was around the same time 60's 70's and the same toxic substance (PCBs) and I do think it's a relevant part of Monsanto history that deserves mention in their wiki entry. I was not trying to plagiarize, and as far as I know, you are usually ok with quoting published material (even if you do so for several paragraphs) as long as you credit your source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jshuga (talk • contribs) 22:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a black-and-white rule about how much material you can quote, but it's generally a good idea to summarize and selectively quote. The Washington Post is certainly acceptable as a source. Oh, and keep in mind....just because it's coming from the Post doesn't mean that it's NPOV! There are plenty of circumstances where you could find two major media articles about a given topic where each would take an entirely different stance. (Some pulications regularly are accused of being liberal, others of being conservative, etc.) The important thing is to try to be balanced. If you're going to quote Michael Moore's opinion on a topic, it might be appropriate to balance that with an Ann Coulter quote, etc. In either case, the reader is aware of the source, and can take that into account when forming an opinion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks so much for all your help... at first i thought you probably worked for Monsanto or something, but now I see that you are simply trying to maintain a high standard. by the way, when i get a chance to try again on the Monsanto entry, what is the chance that I'll be dealing with you again (as opposed to some other editor)? I feel that it might go more smoothly dealing with you since you are already familiar with the content that I'm trying to add.

Best, -joe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jshuga (talk • contribs) 23:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say. There isn't anyway for me to tell who has it on their watchlist, or who might look at it at any given time. If you'd like feedback or are having problems with it, just message me again. I don't have time at the moment to sit down and try to add a new section myself, but I'd be happy to help you fine tune your version. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please tell what may the copyright status of this image? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know that US government photos are usually public domain, but I don't know if the same goes for photos taken by the Pakistan military. Your best bet would be to contact the ISPR and ask; I couldn't find any info on that site about copyrights. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco, California has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi
i was going to repair the sports section of India.
Pl. see india talk page for details.
I am no spammer!
I want to become a major editor of Wikipeda
--Raunakroy (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)--Raunakroy (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn how to use templates properly before posting them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to include references to our use of the Shocker in the page. We have used the shocker since 2004 and have promoted it for a lengthy amount of time. I find our inclusion as relevant to the article as College Humor is. Anyway, I am not trying to spam, or introduce trash into Wikipedia but I would like to make some kind of reference. Please let me know if this is possible without being considered vandalizing the article. Thank you for your time. --Swampedalive (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:COI, I don't think it would be appropriate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ohnoitsjamie, for participating in my recent RfA, which recently passed with 81 support and 1 neutral !votes. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA and I thank you for taking the time to !vote in my nomination. I feel so honoured to be trusted by so many of you and please, if you have any advice, comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. I would also like to thank Acalamari, Rlevse and Nishkid64, for their nomination statements. Thank you again. AngelOfSadness talk 23:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just wondering how much i have to pay to keep my wiki up. seems it is blatant advertizing. hmmmmm, being a force in my industry and affiliated with hundreds of other businesses is advertizing? how much do i have to pay? seriously, enquiring minds want to know. an intern thought it a nice gesture to create one for us, and i notice several others in my field have them up as well. so what do i have to pay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.142.89 (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this isn't bribe-taking Jamie, this is 76.115.142.89-blocking Jamie (as you've probably realized by now). You'll be happy to know that despite your fanciful "scandal," I'm still deleting non-notable articles on a daily basis. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I realize I just vandal'd her talk page) All this vandalism is coming from 4chan.org. It's part of some new spam thing. 69.156.177.21 (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert fan you blocked, requesting unblocking. Wondering if you'd be amenable to releasing or reducing the block at this point, as they're saying they've "learned their lesson." Whether that's actually true is up in the air, of course, but it's easy enough to reblock if they pose a problem, I figure. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the user has a few contributions that appear to be good faith, so I'd be fine with an unblock, though I agree that a quick reblock is in order if the "lesson" did not sink in. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You declined this unblock, which I agree with because s/he's dedicated to spam. However, s/he may notice that the block has technically expired. Any suggestions? Is an extended block appropriate? I did 12 hours intiially in order to deal with the spamming and likely sock puppetry. I'm headed off line myself so I can't work on it. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll keep an eye on the user. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! It's always good to sign in in the morning and see that you have already cleaned up some spam in the articles I follow. On that "noob", he spams 9 copies of site is.gd , then after you revert he asks at User talk:Somebodyelse256 that the site be added to the blacklist. Not a bad idea, since it seems to be a URL-compression site like tinyurl.com. Best, CliffC (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, just took care of that. Go figure... OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I logged something yesterday and spotted you had listed a url redirector. If it is one it should be done at Meta for project wide coverage. If you can just confirm that I will list it - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:TOC template.JPG

I want someone to make a TOC(Tables of content) template for wikipedia like this[1]. If you know how to make, then please put on your effort as it will be good for wikipedia and its users. *The image is an edited one*. I didn't find any template that would break or split the contents into half and put the other half on right side[2]. This template will utilize the blank space and will make the contents table easily accessible without scrolling down. THANKS. Harryroger (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that you have answered my questions. I have one more -- How would one delete (archive) resolved issues that probably should have never been introduced to an individual topic discussion page? I tried, but please forgive me if I didn't follow proper wiki format since after reviewing the wiki info on this subject, I'm still unclear on how to do so. Sorry for any inconvenience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.0.130.14 (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All issues have been resolved. Again, Sorry for any inconvenience and wasted talk page space that these issues may have caused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.0.130.14 (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was adding links for the Official Colorado Springs Travel and Tourism site to attractions that are in the area. The Experience Colorado Springs site has references to all of the attractions that I was adding links to, however you deleted it from one of the pages. How would you like me to legitimize the placement of their links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihoney (talk • contribs) 20:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The site is not just related to Colorado Springs, though. It is related to the attractions of Colorado Springs. The site is dedicated to drawing visitors to Colorado Springs through the attractions, events and happenings there. They have an individual page for each attraction, should I make the link go directly there instead of just to the homepage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihoney (talk • contribs) 20:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be specific links about the attraction in question. Please avoid adding the link to broader topics (like Colorado. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihoney (talk • contribs) 21:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did my redirect from "Do not want" to a section of an article explaining "Do not want" constitute "Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism."? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 11:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, think that was a mistake based on previous deletions of that page. I'll restore it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeeeeeees! Thanks. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1. You deleted my material before I had even finished sourcing it, surely you should allow 24 hours at least. For purely technical reasons I have to save and re-edit as my connection is not so great.

Point 2. The information on the South Africa page is wildly inaccurate and some of it, especially regarding the early history of South Africa, is false. I was attempting to clean up the article and source it when you deleted the material I put on! Come on dude, I am allowed to eat between editing as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.9.123 (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 24 hour grace period for coming up with sources. In some cases, a "cite-needed" tag is added first, but if the information is more controversial in nature, it may be deleted until a source is found. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PROTIP: If you create an account, you can make a user subpage and prepare your changes inside that. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestion! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the 17th June a page entitled Jnd band was deleted. According to the deletion logs, this was due to the subject not being notable enough to warrant appearance on Wikipedia. Just to prevent me making the same mistake twice, could you please make it clear to me exactly what it is that constitutes notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtwn3rd (talk • contribs) 16:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MUSIC. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cooksi, the editor who created "horror films actors" created list of horror films actors. I can see he was clearly told not to create it before, and you posted a message stating he could be blocked. This is the fourth time he's created the article, and I think somebody should tell him he's not to create it again. Yojimbo501 (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you took care of that. Yojimbo501 (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try your local library, the internet is not the answer to everything, before the internet people read books made out of paper. if you would like i can mail you a copy of the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burba1269 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether the book exists, a local "who's who" does not satisfy WP:BIO guidelines. Add it again without a verifiable source and you'll be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting idiot-face's addition. Corsulian (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you deleted this entry - I really dont know why. It relates to one of the founders of the US , he helped to created the largest syndicated loan to help establish the new republic. I happen to have the transcript of the original article of the newspaper . In the spiel about Wilhelm/Willem Willink there's a link to his birth certificate, which doesnt work. I`m actually adding interesting info on the reaction to his achievements when he died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwillink (talk • contribs) 22:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willem Willink already has a biographical article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're still messing around with this article long after the joke was over? I'm guessing they just recently learned that Lindbergh made it to Paris. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's one of those "Hay Guys!" things. That's why I'm blocking on sight. I got tired of extending the protection. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I saw you had set that trap. I wonder how many flies you'll catch? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another fly, in case you missed it: [3] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another one who just now heard this joke: [4] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are a bunch of videos, google links, and things of that manner. I'm sorry I annoyed you, there were no upsetting intentions. Also, the Slowskys released their own political party, so there must have been some kind of popularity for a non advertising follow-up! See this for my reasons. Should I add that as a reference? TurtleShroom! :) ^†Jesus Loves You and Died for you!^† 23:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That link does not qualify as a reliable third-party source of notability. Note that all of the references at the bottom are third-party news sites of some sort that make a statement to the effect of "phenom" or "wildly popular," etc. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just caught the deletion log entry for Colin James? Is that some sort of error. Were there two similar pages or 2 pages with similar spelling? "The" Colin James is a Juno Award winning recording artist. Now all his albums have a red link where the link to his main article used to be? Can that be corrected? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 16:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been taken care of. The article had a lot a vandalism done to it before you came along. It's been restored to it's pre-vandal state. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 16:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you just deleted the iPod touch Fans article and I was wondering what was the problem with it. It had at least 2 or 3 references from notable sources such as Ars Technica and TUAW. Why is it OK for a site like TUAW to have an entry, but not iPod touch Fans? The members on the site tried to make an entry and it was repeatedly deleted, and then I came back and put together on that had proper sources, explained the notability of the site, and gave proper context. I would really appreciate it if you could take another look and let me know if you will reconsider. Thank you for your tme. Cruelio1998 (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to deletion review. I don't consider it to be notable enough, but I'll concede that it's borderline enough to merit a second opinion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! Appreciate it! Cruelio1998 (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary made me laugh. Well done. IronGargoyle (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heehee. Gotta have a little fun sometimes. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search engine optimization has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete relevant additions to talk pages such as the Irish names I added.[5][6] This is a legitimate topic of discission (see here for a previous example of discussion by other users) and no unsourced info was added to the mainspace. The translations I added are taken from a poor quality source (itself unsourced) and should not be added to the article without additional confirmation. But they are legitimate for a talk page to inspire others to help confirm them. Thanks. Irish Name (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to add that information to people who are not native Irish speakers. Please don't do it unless there is a broader consensus to add that sort of information. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely false that "there is no consensus to add that information to people who are not native Irish speakers." Many people, from former taoiseach Bertie Ahern on down, who barely speak a word of Irish have Irish names prominently displayed in mainspace. I was only adding these names to the talk page. If you think that's not an appropriate subject for discussion, please change the talk page rules but don't summarily delete entries. Irish Name (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bertie Ahern is a native of Ireland. Ted Kennedy is not. Besides, what's the point of creating a single purpose account to add unsourced Irish translations to the talk page of anyone with an Irish-sounding surname? Furthermore, I don't need to change the talk page rules. The talk page is already defined as a space to discuss improvements to an article. What does adding an unsourced translation have to do with improving an article?OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the discussion at Talk:Theobald Wolfe Tone, you will notice there has already been unsourced speculation about precisely this topic (which has not been deleted). I agree that unsourced info shouldn't be added to mainspace but it certainly doesn't undermine the integrity of a discussion page and might provide impetus for someone to find sourcing for the name. Many Wikipedia articles about Irish persons already have Irish-language names included in the mainspace so any discussion of an Irish person's Irish name can be considered for "improvement of the article" as you put it. If you don't care to participate in such discussions, that's your prerogative, but don't try to enforce your own judgement about what others should discuss without basis in policy. Finally, WP:SPA is an essay; an opinion and not policy. Please assume good faith (which is a guideline and is recommended in WP:SPA as well.) Irish Name (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, I was wondering if you could help merge/move two pages...USS Lafayette (AP-53) merged into SS Normandie and Lexus IS-F moved to Lexus IS F. Thanks for your help! SynergyStar (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If moved the Lexus article. Do you know of anything in the US Lafayette article that doesn't exist in the Normandie article? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for moving the page, actually nm about the other merge, I found out that another admin (User:MBK004) is working on it (albeit taking weeks). SynergyStar (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my comments above Immigration Voice. Those are not my personal comments. Those are truth. Anyway, this article's neutrality is questionable. They have only given their point of view, not others'. They are taking donation money and taking vacations to Switzerland, and claim to be non-profit organization. I have lost $450 to them and no action has been taken. Therefore, I request you to keep my comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pappu2 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our WP:NPOV policy, a link that's already been provided to you in warnings placed on your talk page. If you continue to post commentary without citing reliable sources, you may be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of proof would you like me to provide? This is your web site and it is fine if you would like to continue to threaten people to remove stuff, ban people, ban IP etc. But, the comments are completely truthful and legitimate. I have lost $450 in hope that they would be of some help. But instead, they are taking vacations in Switzerland with that money. And when asked for accounting, my user id and IP address was banned. If someone is committing fraud in the name of running a non-profit organization, shouldn't others know? If that is not allowed, why don't you remove the entire article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pappu2 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the Better Business Bureau. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you get out of publishing an article about such cheaters? How much they bribed you to keep their article? If that is how you want to behave, from now onwards, Wikipedia will be one more web site that I will have to take revenge against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pappu2 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you've just become one more user that I've blocked indefinitely for making threats. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's really a shame that Pappu decided to take this tack. I felt like I was just starting to get through to them on their talk page, but obviously the above statement is completely unacceptable. If they ask and you decide to unblock them at some point, let me know and I will help monitor and mentor. Thanks. — Satori Son 17:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your message:

You have recently recreated or reposted material at Discover Golf Mexico which previously was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not recreate this page without prior approval from an administrator or you may be blocked from editing. We ask that you respect what Wikipedia is not. If you disagree with the page's deletion, you may seek an independent deletion review.

My comment:

I recreated and reposted material at Discover Golf Mexico because it was deleted upon "advertisement" basis, while Discover Golf Mexico is not a lucrative company! That's why, I tried to repost it trying to explain just the important facts and unique characteristics, which may be very interesting for other consultants! and trying to avoid any advertising idea. --MBO2008 (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As already explained on your talk page, the content is not suitable for Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As with most articles promoted so long ago, this article does not currently meet the Featured Article criteria. Since you have been a major contributor to the article, I would appreciate your help to bring this article up to the current standards. Please don't take this as an insult to the article, as it is well-written and there shouldn't be a lot of work necessary.

I have listed my concerns on the article's talk page. I would like to get this up to the current standards without going through a Featured Article review, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you replace the picture on the "platform" article? Just why do you feel that it is a better photo exactly? Thanks in advance, (soon to be amdmin) JeanLatore (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is sharper, and most importantly, focuses more on the subject (shoes) versus legs, a skirt, and a bottle of beer. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as long as you are here, can you as an admin delete my photo? I uploaded it, am the creator, and have second thoughts about having it stored on here. JeanLatore (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. JeanLatore (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you ah must admit that the feet/pedicure of the lady in the current pic are quite ungainly. That was my gf in the pic you deleted -- now she's a hot slut! JeanLatore (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Estado de Nuevo México" is another official name of New Mexico. Both English and Spanish are official languages in Enw Mexico (although English is generally used), similar to the situation in Louisiana where both English and French are official (although English is generally used).

Source: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jwcrawford/nm-con.htm

I will therefore re-insert my edits into the article.

I advise that you don't. That source doesn't say that Spanish is an official language; New Mexico does not have an official language or languages, period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell why my link is spam and not relevant to the content of the Forex Exchange page? Doutrax (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take for instans THIS link: ForexTrading in Europe ; www.europeanforextrading.com => YEAH , that's spam - I agree 100% percent, but I really don't see why my homepage should be compared to that website. I've spent tons of hours work to make my website, so other forexinvestors could use the tools represented on my website.

I muss expect that you not even have taken a look on my website??.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doutrax (talk • contribs) 10:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle; see WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not promoting I just add my website because I think it's relevant to the content? Please tell me why you don't think my website is relevant to the article - you actually call my website for SPAM? Doutrax (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not discussing this further; all the relevant information has already been presented to you (WP:EL, WP:COI, etc). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ONIJ. I've been working on this article, and I just discovered Ladyhawke (nz band), which you had deleted. Is there any useful content there that could be added to (merged to) Ladyhawke (band)? Thanks in advance for giving it a look. Cheers, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not much, just the infobox (which I've added). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great; thanks again. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you asked me to place new comments on the bottom of the page, but I haven't yet been able to work out how to do so. There are a lot of conversations, with an edit beside each one, but I can't find a link for starting a new comment.

Since you are obviously knowledgable about wikis, can you also please help me categorise and tag on some of the entries?

I don't know if simply placing for tildes does it, So I am giving my name too: Shahidul Alam Drik001 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To leave comments at the bottom, simply click "edit this page," scroll to the bottom, and add the comments. A good tool for category adding is WP:HOTCAT. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I now at least know how to converse. The reason I put in www.majorityworld.com was because I was trying to put in an entry for what I consider to be a very important term that is now in fairly common usage at least in sociological or developmental circles. I was not able to enter the term "Majority World" and found the only way to refer to it was to introduce www.majorityworld.com which is based on the same philosophy. My preference is still to use "Majority World" and I would appreciate your help in trying to do so.

Here is the idea behind "Majority World"

Economically poor countries of the world are invariably countries that have been colonised, and continue to be colonised through globalised forms of control. They have been categorised as being 'Third World', or 'Developing World' or even LDCs (Least Developed Countries). The expressions have strong negative connotations which reinforce the stereotypes about poor communities and represent them as icons of poverty. It hides their histories of oppression and continued exploitation. The labels also hinder the appreciation of the cultural and social wealth of these communities. Though these terms are still used without remorse, there is an increasing feeling within the communities themselves that these terms are inappropriate.

In the early nineties, I began advocating for a new expression 'majority world' to represent what has formerly been known as the "Third World". The term highlights the fact that we are indeed the majority of humankind. It also brings to sharp attention the anomaly that the G8 countries - whose decisions affect majority of the world's peoples - represent a tiny fraction of humankind.

The term majority world, now increasingly being used, challenges the west's rhetoric of democracy. It also defines the community in terms of what it has, rather than what it lacks. In time the majority world will reaffirm its place in a world where the earth will again belong to the people who walk on it.

I would be happy to send you articles that describe the concept further, but since you do not accept emails, I don't know how to send you PDF files. Drik001 (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've provided no evidence that "Majority World" is a notable term or website. All articles in Wikipedia must meet notability and verifiability standards. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles (not online) which I would like to quote. How do I do that? BTW thanks for the help with categories. I haven't got there yet, but have made some progress. Drik001 (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW http://www.appropedia.org/Majority_world exists, so maybe I don't need to include it in wikipedia. What do you think? 16:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drik001 (talk • contribs)

Sorry forgot to sign last time Drik001 (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it can meet the guidelines I noted, it's probably not appropriate for Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it probaly can, as I have the material with me, but if it works in appropedia, then it doesn't need another entry in wikipedia. I have provided a link to relevant sections in wikipedia to the appropedia entry which should be sufficient. However this raises the question, how does one provide citations for articles which are not online. Should one provide ISBN numbers or something? How would people verify them? Is there not a mechanism where one could provide extracts from respectable publications (though not online) which could strengthen one's argument?Drik001 (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the latsst issue of Amerasia Journal (published by UCLA) "Majority World" Movements. It provides an in-depth analysis of the majority world concept and several articles related to the subject besides the editorial piece by Russell C Leong: Majority World: New Veterans of Globalisation (page vii) (http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/archives/ajv34n1.htm)Drik001 (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page for Odin's Court and Deathanity were deleted recently. Why? And how do I get them but back? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinsCourt (talk • contribs) 02:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were deleted because there were no reliable sources establishing notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were references listed establishing this. If you didn't understand them, why was a discussion not started before deleting them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinsCourt (talk • contribs) 20:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently haven't read the reliable sources policy. Self-published (e.g., the bands website and MySpace page) do not establish notability, nor does mention in a forum. You'll need to take the issue to Deletion review if you feel that you can convince others of the band's notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were several journalist and non-band related references listed - Prog Archives, Blabbermouth, etc. I believe only 1 or 2 of the references were from the actual band's website and/or MySpace page. Again, I wish you would have simply started a talk on this rather than delete it outright. It appears that you did not fully look at things before you hastily deleted the pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinsCourt (talk • contribs) 11:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said, take it to deletion review if you want. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had my suspicions months ago but declined to make a checkuser report since User:Adam Pirolo had just recently tried to harass me with AFD noms and I felt concerned that such a report would just look like I was going after anyone and everyone trying to AFD the article Innosense so I stayed silent and just watched from a distance. -WarthogDemon 20:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah...tough call. I've withheld suspicions in some cases and gone out on a limb in others...I guess you could call it a calculated risk to the reputation of your "intuition." It's not like JL did any serious damage (well, some of the harassment was unfortunate), but I think most here would say it's prudent to err on the side of AGF. While some of the Mr.Bollockz edits were quite similar, it's not easy to see a clear connection between JL's and Pirolo's edits (for me at least). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Perhaps you'll be able and willing to help me. (I've tried writing to another of your associates here, so far no joy).

It seems I'm missing something on Wikipedia and as a result, a few of my articles got zapped (immediately, lol). And I think you may have killed at least one of them. (ouch...!)

I've created three articles (I haven't completely finished them, but I did want to see how they preview), and before I could count to, erm.. say 10 - they were gone! The articles in question are "Fame Games Radio," "Laura Krier," and "Paul Sedkowski" - and I was going to upload 4 more about persons related to the new ABC show, Fame Games.

I noticed something about "notability." And... it seems I'm stupidly bungling this. Not sure how to deal with that, other than what I'm already doing. Providing a link to ABC, for example, I would have thought, is evidence of some of that "notability."

We are directly associated with ABC, they have a reference to us on their page "ABC Radio Networks" (see Fame Games), and I simply wanted to provide a link to expand on that. It would seem that creating a Wikipedia page for a new nationwide radio show plus brief info about its hosts should be allowed. Am I wrong?

This is not intended as blatant self-promotion, but rather information for anyone who might be interested. And there's already a few million of those, actually, so it's about time we addressed this! Any self-promotional aspects are wholly incidental. :) Fame Games is 100% free and it's an invaluable service to the music community around the world. It's the first even indie music show in history to be given daily prime-time hour-long slots on US radio!

(Sorry about the blatantly self-promotional and pompous tirade, lol, but if you have indie artist friends - make sure you send them to Fame Games where they have a real chance of actually doing something about their career! - darn, I never stop. :)

Would it be a big problem for you to give me a real quick hint on what I can do to get those articles posted - without me having to spend an hour reading? :)

Sorry, we're working 24/7 here so sometimes even a small detour seems very difficult.

Hoping to reach enlightment soon, I remain,

Yours sincerely,

Meremusic (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While Fame Games Radio might squeak by on the notability requirements, I doubt that individuals associated with it would meet notability criteria unless they were notable for something else as well. Please also see our conflict of interest policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read this thing on how to make ur user pages and how to put all these cool boxes and info about urself in there and I tried and it seems that my laptop is wanting to be bad and make it like rocket science for me, could you possibly help me out? --Chrismaster1 (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Puppets did my layout; I've only modified it. Easiest way to start out is to copy someone else's design and modify it to reflect your info and interests. There are lots of good examples if you look around. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions cite research by other individuals (psychology professor, Robert Emmons, from the University of California-Davis, and Sonja Lyubomirsky, Ph.D. Stanford University), quotes numerous famous people (author Steven Pinker, linguist Noam Chomsky, the Dali Lama, philosopher and scientist, Alfred Korzybski, etc.) and provides a point of view that is both relevant and not being made by other contributers. You, on the other hand, simply delete material you disagree with and give no meaningful explainations, just broad generalizations. My articles and contributions are also notable especially in light of the topic's popularity and coverage in the media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akirwan (talk • contribs) 02:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You truly haven't read our WP:OR policy, which clearly includeds Synthesis of published material which advances a position in it's definition. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jamie! Thanks for informing me that you find my actions inappropriate. Frankly speaking, I believe the links I've added today are relevant. But I will re-read the rules you mentioned and return once more. So I'll be back, however, may be with less number of links - only the most relevant. Agreed? :)

BIG4PAPA (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC) BIG4PAPA[reply]

Given our conflict-of-interest policy, you shouldn't add any more links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jamie, I read the policies you advised me. I understood more about Wiki framework, thanks.

And here is what I want to ask you. I finally concluded that ilovebig4.com is relevant for 5 pages only: http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Four_auditors and 4 pages of the Companies. In order to comply with COI policy, I need your advice: should I submit the changes on the pages myself or submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk pages along with a Request edit tag to attract users to review the edit? Thanks in advance for the advice.

BIG4PAPA (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs, especially blogs with advertising, are rarely appropriate article links (unless the blog is maintained by the subject of the article, or if the blogger is notable (that's in addition to the aforementioned COI issue. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jamie, I would definitely agree with you that blogs are rarely appropriate article links. But ilovebig4.com is not a blog. That's a source, which aggregates news about big 4 auditors. Indeed, it works on wordpress engine, but that's all about blog in it. Each post has a link to the source and main value of ilovebig4.com is that people who want to get to know more about big four auditors can read it all in one place and what is also important, regularly. Are these reasons enough for you to make you feel comfortable and approve adding ilovebig4.com as an external links on 5 pages? I would be happy too if so :) BIG4PAPA (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2008 (GMT +2)

You may argue that it's not a blog, but it is self-published; self-published sources, like blogs, are rarely considered. See WP:EL for more info about what not to add as links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie, thanks for prompt answers. And thanks for referring to External Links, I've looked through it once more. I also read Wiki's definition of Blog. You know, auditors say that main purpose of the business is to increase shareholders' wealth. Rephrasing it in respect to wikipedia, I would say that main purpose of wikipedia is to give people more relevant info on the topic they are interested in. In our case, you probably will admit that ilovebig4.com gives more relevant info on the topic of big four auditors. Evenmore, aforementioned 5 pages were externally linked to ilovebig4.com during several month and generated stable traffic, so I believe it is another proof of the value it brings to wikipedia users. I am grateful to you for warning me from putting external links to ilovebig4.com from other less relevant pages. I understood more about wikipedia and its policies now. Therefore, I strongly believe that aforementioned 5 pages should be linked to ilovebig4.com and hope you would agree with me after all. Thanks. BIG4PAPA (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2008 (GMT +2) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.240.181 (talk)

I personally won't object if you re-add the link to Big Four auditors, but I think that'd be enough. Given the coi issue and the "self-published" issues with the link, other editors may object. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jamie, thanks for deliberate decision and insight. I added external link to Big Four auditors page. I still believe that other 4 companies' pages should be linked as well, but I will follow your advice and ask other people what they think about it. I already started section on Deloitte's page. Was glad to deal with you. BIG4PAPA (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie: I received your warning and I will no longer add any links to the lemon law page. The page in its current state is useless. I did try to follow the rules as you can see from the lemon law discussion page. But, Corey Salzano disappeared (I think he reappeared as libertycents, but I don't judge). I have a problem with the way that article is written. It helps no one. How can people find out what the law is in their state? The page on lemonlawamerica.com (which I do not run but I am linked ot admittedly) I suggested provides a statute to each state so folks could find out their law. I also added a page from my own website which provided easy to read lemon law summaries from each states, but I understand the WP:COI there and I didn't submit it again after LibertyCents (Corey?) omitted it. In most states, the law provides completely cost-free legal help using fee shifting provisions. This enables consumers to fight a billion-dollar automotive organization with resources such as mechanics, access to technical service bulletins, etc. I have worked on over 200 articles with such outlets as cbs news, abc, etc. and Corey insisted that because I link to them, they are tunnel sites. They are not. I have spent a decade working to educate consumers. There are plenty of great references that could be linked to the lemon law page: www.autopedia.com, www.autosafety.org, www.lemonlawamerica.com, etc. but if I add anything, Corey/Liberty starts telling me I am spamming. Of course, I am linked to all of these sites--they are terrific references.

What hurts even more is that Mr. Salzano makes his living by creating sites for automobile dealers--a TREMENDOUS conflict of interest. I was quite upset when I found this out, and read that he has been outed by such users as EvanCarroll (perhaps that is why he got rid of his original talk page.)See http://static.wikipedia.org/new/wikipedia/en/articles/v/e/h/Talk~Vehicle_identification_number_d917.html

I feel that this page needs to be rewritten. I feel that Corey Salzano/Liberty Cents should have no part in it. I guess there is nothing that can be done, but I certainly appreciate the opportunity to vent. I am quite upset, but I realize that there is nothing I can do about it. Then, when my friend removes LibertyCent's entry from my talk page, so I don't have to look at it (I was at their home last night), LibertyCents slaps both of our hands. Since when does someone have control of what a talk page can say? My goodness.

I am sure that you give a lot of time and efforts to making wikipedia a decent place to find information. Unfortunately, I have no faith in the site at this time. Respectfully submitted, 65.91.69.113 (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less concerned with Corey/Liberty's identity than I am with their/his/her edits. As such, I don't see any issues with the edits that I looked at (most of the edits to Lemon Law were to remove legal spam, which I 100% agree with). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you don't view his work efforts to be a direct conflict of interest? How does someone who works for auto dealers get to write a section on lemon law, or prevent information from being posted for consumers on how to fight a lemon law claim. And why are you and him the only folks who deem what I included spam? Interesting. Thanks for your time. I will bring my matter up to others. Respectfully, 65.91.69.113 (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a venue for lawyer advertising (or any other kind of advertising), period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So just so I understand, the lemon law america link I submitted, which is a list of all the statutes, but I don't run, is advertising, because it includes links to law firms (which no one pays for by the way). Same with autosafety.org? And any news story on lemon law is considered spammy if it links to any sort of lemon law related website? I don't get it, but I do appreciate your time. Take care. Sincerely, 65.91.69.113 (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie, I received your warning for the article Vietnam, for inserting a link to a bank of vietnam photos - nice photos for all about vietnam, why ;)

I think you should put there something for other when reading about Vietnam, can see its photos too, that's right ?

again, welcome to http://www.vietnamalbum.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quangmd (talk • contribs) 02:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used {{cite news}} to format the newspaper references in Robotshop. At this point, I think the newspaper references are enough to demonstrate notability. You may want to take a look at the current version of the article and perhaps revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robotshop. --Eastmain (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting is much better, but none of the sources (that could be considered to be reliable for notability purposes) provide non-trivial coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have taken a look at all the references, including the ones in French, and commented on them on the AfD page. --Eastmain (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize that the AfD has finished, but I wanted to mention something. If you don't read French, you can get a reasonable sense of what the French-language references mean by using http://translate.google.com, which seems to be better than http://babelfish.yahoo.com/ Machine translations are still a long way from perfect, but they can be helpful when you need to evaluate references. --Eastmain (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He looks to be back, this time as User:Black Waves. I've moved the issue back to WP:ANI. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ohnoitsjamie, I contact you because you've removed my edits made to wiki article Web Design and History of Web Design and the external link to my site where the whole article is completed. This article was written by myself using a lot of data sources, so I wonder why you have deleted my edits? I've described four periods in web design history, this information is rather unique and new, and I suppose it would be interesting for everyone. Also I followed all the rules of anti-spam policy. So please adduce your arguments.

Regards, Frike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fri ke (talk • contribs)

The arguments are already adduced (1) on your talk page (2) on the Web Design page (the big notice that says NO MORE LINKS). No further adducement is necessary. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking over Lupin/All Recent Changes and this user vandalized this page so I went to go give a warning, however the talk page was so cluttered with warnings I could barely find a place to put mine! Would you mind taking a look at that IP and consider banning it? It seems time someone should do something. Thanks! DeluxNate (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC) U-T-C [reply]

I am not sure why you removed the links to comprehensive lists of athletes from Toledo that I had added to the cite. They are not spam and I don't think they are "search" links. It is my content and an updated version of something that used to be available on the Toledo's Attic page run by the University. See <http://web.archive.org/web/20040908011013/www.attic.utoledo.edu/att04/athletes/toledo+athletes+with+links.htm> from the internet archive for the original version. Did you go and look at the linked articles before you deleted them?

I hope I put this in the correct spot on the talk page. I couldn't figure out how to add a new comment without other than using this edit feature. Rdlwolverine (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Rdlwolverine[reply]

Sorry, my mistake; they looked like search-links at first. I'll restore them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rdlwolverine (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Rdlwolverine[reply]

Just an FYI, but I unblocked this IP per Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses saying that IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked. The IP was blocked for 19 days, which is quite long for a first block, so I decided not to re-block for a period of time after unblocking. If you feel this is necessary, however, you are of course free to do so. VegaDark (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that was a mistake, it should've been a 24 hours block. I probably had too many tabs open and thought I was doing that to a named account. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just any FYI, User:Varnooja has made his/her third unblock request today, and I said I'd notify to you review the unblock. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston Phoenix recently did a large cover story naming the best bands in each state. A Phoenix reporter contacted me, saying that when his intern attempted to add links to the relevant articles, she was reverted. I know that adding links to a bunch of articles in a row suggests a spammer, but this is a notable publication that seems worthy of a mention. GlassCobra 23:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the publication, it's still link canvassing and a conflict-of-interest in my opinion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it's unfit for inclusion simply because of who was including it? Would it be acceptable if I did it? GlassCobra 03:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not the only reason. A single news story about one magazine's opinion of the best band in a state is too narrow in focus to be an appropriate link for a page on a state. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the states; actually, I meant to mention that initially. However, I think it's a decent addition for the band pages, whether in the external links or in the body of the article itself. GlassCobra 03:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to it's inclusion on the bands' pages, makes a lot more sense there (and for up-and-coming bands, is a good notability references). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great. Sorry about the initial confusion. GlassCobra 04:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems User 63.3.4.129 is again ruining some pages on the upcoming Sprint Cup race pages with fancrut in the form of qualifying and putting the Top 35 in points in there on each one. Looks loike he needs to be suspended. NoseNuggets (talk) 1:27 AM US EDT Aug 2 2008

Regarding this edit, I just want you to know that the link you removed is being discussed on the talk page. No decision has yet been made to add it or not. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link sounds like a forum to me; forums usually aren't appropriate external links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if you could possibly tell me how to do that dual colored signature like you have? Thank you. Texhausballa (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize if I messed up by adding in appropriate links, but I'm not spamming. I added a legit reveiw site I found, I saw BevNet on the links, so I added one I found, I'm not getting anything in return for adding it. Also, why are you undoing all of my contributions? I made a small change to Hogans_Heroes and you changed it back w/o explanation. I understand if you undo my 'spam-like' changes, but you don't need to go overboard and undo non link containing edits. :(

Alex —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the wikipedia link guidelines allow for posting links to reviews: '4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexPBenes (talk • contribs) 15:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we don't allow link canvassing. See WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie, you sent me this message: Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

If you examine the links I included, every one of them was absolutely relevant to the subject at hand. Some of the material I wrote, yes, but it is all editorial, unbiased, and informative. For example, I see a link was removed on the entry for Interplanetary Internet. The link removed lead to an speech by Vint Cerf talking about Interplanetary Internet.

Thanks and please reconsider the removals. User_talk:Chad_Vander_Veen

Please see our conflict of interest policy, in addition to WP:EL. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article [[7]] is looking in quite a mess, whole page is black, with some vandalism that goes beyond a normal article edit.

I'm unable to do anything as all the normal options are missing from my screen. Looks like it may have been hacked

Lostsocks (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Looks fine to me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who participated in the discussion regarding the use of Nobel icons earlier this year, I would like to inform you that there is a discussion regarding this matter. Your opinion is welcome at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Cheers, « Diligent Terrier [talk] 21:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is worth bothering yet, but these ip addresses look like they could all be HelloSOAWorld, who you just blocked. The 216. addresses all made edits after you blocked HelloSOAWorld, two of them reverting one of HelloSOAWorld's edits:

• 68.175.102.177 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 216.9.250.34  (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 216.9.250.117 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 216.9.250.118 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

--Ronz (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ronz, blacklisted, blocked. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. This one looks like a meatpuppet:

• 83.103.127.148 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

--Ronz (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 216.9.250.40  (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 206.53.144.66  (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

This is getting ridiculous. I've requested semi-protection. --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

68.175.102.177 and 83.103.127.148 should probably be blocked for the continued editing from these ips. --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you removed the Exaprotect link I added to the Commercial Security Event Management Product Companies from the Security Event Manager page. This link is not a promotion or spam. Exaprotect is a valid Security Event Management product company and should be part of the list for completeness of the page. Here is a quote from Gartner Group, an analyst firm following the SEM space: "Exarotect's appliance provides a combination of SEM, SIM and log management functions. The majority of Exaprotect's customers are in Europe, but the company is gradually expanding its U.S. customer base, initially selling to customers gained through its acquisition of Solsoft". You will notice that Solsoft is also mentioned in this quote. Exaprotect acquired Solsoft, but the Solsoft brand name is still well recognized in the security space. Hence why I entered a link to Solsoft (Now Exaprotect) as well, for completeness, in case people look for Solsoft. Thank you Tcosta (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)TCosta[reply]

I've deleted all of them. Wikipedia is not a directory of links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should delete the other 2 external links to PDF documents that are nothing else than company propaganda disguised as informative white papers. Tcosta (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)TCosta[reply]

Feel free to. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie, Please review the following dialog regarding the deletion of "Pete Draganic". I wish to have the page restored. Thank you for your time and cooperation.

I understand that you wish to delete this page for a number of reasons however I believe that those are unjustified.

I am a notable figure with statewide recognition.

I am a twice-elected multi-office public official.

I have been officially reported on by dozens of recognized news sources (newspaper, televison and radio) throughout Ohio. I have electronic copies of most print media stories of which I was aware.

I have been covered by numerous blogs on Ohio politics.

I have been included in polling with regard to the Governor's race.

A simple Google on my name returns thousands of results.

I am the ONLY one of 180 candidates for council this past election that was funded by the Republican Party.

I won a council election against the well-funded and well-connected godson of congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. My opponent spent 10 times the monety I did on his election effort.

I ask that you please consider preserving my article given the facts above. It was once posted by someone else when I was a candidate for governor and subsequently removed due to the fact that I had not attained office and therefore was not condsidered notable. However, given my recent successes and interest surrounding me I believe that I have attained some element of notability and this article will serve to inform interested readers along the way as to my background... an important resource on any rising political figure.

I appreciate your sincere consideration.

--Pete Draganic (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it was deleted already, by an administrator. Perhaps you should take your concerns to User:Ohnoitsjamie. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Pete Draganic (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)--65.43.181.120 (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to need to explain why I was banned for my edits. Yes, I read the debate. That's why I thought it would be constructive to synthesize a new popular culture section instead of plagiarising the one from xkcd. You can't just go around banning people for adding things you don't like to articles. If you want to ban popular culture from Wiipedia, why don't you go and do that, instead of trying to enforce a de facto ban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.234 (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious why you were blocked. If you want to be funny, try Uncyclopedia. The next block will be longer. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie, I wish to report a problem with vandalism on my user page. I've had multiple instances of vandalism, recently, from the two following users. There was a thrid user that traced back to a Holiday Inn that I did not include. The following ip and user may be the same but I do not know how to determine the ip of the user.

74.128.96.103 and Ronaldxraygun

If this is not the correct channel for addressing this matter, I apologize. Please direct me to the appropriate place in this case.

Also, not to sound patronizing... thank you for the work you do here. I was impressed to read how many contributions you have made and to learn the depth of work you do here simply from reading the preceding comments. I enjoy using Wikipedia and understand that it is people like you that make it possible. I wish I had the time to contribute on a regular basis. I will be making efforts in the future to at least contribute more.

--Pete Draganic (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned the users responsible for the vandalism. If they continue, they'll be blocked from editing. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you had any feelings or decision on the restoration of the page titled "Pete Draganic".

Thanks

--65.43.181.120 (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a city councilman in a town with a population of 12k does not appear to meet WP:BIO criteria for notability. You could take it to WP:DRV, but I highly doubt the deletion would be overturned there either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to Pete Draganic, Sarah Palin was the mayor of a town of 7k only a couple years ago :)Johnfromtheprarie (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And at that time, she probably would've failed our notability criteria. So what? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 'Ohnoitsjamie',

We would like to add an external link from Wikipedia's perfume page to the WysInfo documentary called "The Scent of Perfume". This docuweb provides information about smell and scent, basics of perfume, history of perfume production, the ancient perfume trade routes and the history of perfume bottles as collectables.

The information was researched and written by Wysinfo. We believe that it has added value to the Wikipedia article. We believe that is does not violate any of the guidelines. We understand that this does not contribute to the ranking and we are not adding the link for this purpose.

The goal of WysInfo is to provide quality information for the average reader. It is not intended to duplicate encyclopedic information, but rather is intended as a documentary on the web. If you believe that it is inappropriate, please let us know why.

The link that we would like to add is: www.wysinfo.com/Perfume/Perfume_overview.html - "The Scent of Perfume".

Thank you for your time, www.wysinfo.com Yigalsara (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)yigalsara[reply]

There is already info on your talk page regarding why the link is inappropriate (additionally, see WP:COI). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]