User talk:Ohnoitsjamie/archive22

Happy Birthday, Ohnoitsjamie, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a nice day! Logan Talk Contributions 02:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I still have 6 more hours to go in my time zone. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The extensive editions I made in the Ankara page are erased for no apparent logical reasons.

For the mean elevation for Ankara, 938 meters is cited according to its source. I looked at other Wikipedia articles about Ankara which use this source too. The previous elevation of 900 was rounded up and most importantly was not sourced. That is why added it.

I added the years of completion to each public building acording to each relevant article and rearranged some pictures according to its topics.

I also added some history of the urban growth and accomodation of Ankara in the “Demographics” section and added a shanty town picture and tower block picture, both especially the latter are typical features of Ankara and all Turkish cities.

I never was a suckpuppet although I was accused but the editions I did were reverted by anonymous "users" Special:Contributions/78.176.97.79, Special:Contributions/78.176.109.72 and Special:Contributions/78.176.115.134 and the latter using insults in Turkish likely directed at me (Which I figured out thanks to machine translators) which I suspect are the same "user" (the I.P. numbers constantly change) and the logged in User:Omulazimoglu who led an edit war with other users in December about a shanty town picture and the subsequent protection of the Ankara page.

There is already a big shanty town picture of Ankara I put in that section, but I do not understand why the particular user insist on more shanty town pictures. I am not glossing over, on the contrary I described the actual sitation of Ankara and of Turkish cities in general. I believe one is enough to explain the sitation of this city. It sounds trivial itself but the gallery is usually reserved for public buildings, parks etc. I have not seen a single shanty town picture of such articles like Rio de Janeiro, Cairo , Dacca, Delhi or Cape Town for example which I do not defend but I do not think that articles are dotted with many shanty town pictures.

Could you check it out?

Saguamundi

I didn't realize that article already had one shanty town picture. I'm in agreement that one is enough. Not enough time to jump into the edit-war on the article now. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you put a protection page on the Ankara article or establish a policy on putting or not putting certain types of pictures, by also taking other city articles as an example to end the constant and trivial edit wars that are still going on? As I stated above I do not support putting more slum pictures on a city article even though they me be an undeniable feature of certain cities. But is it a better idea that there should be a limit or if this edit war persits to remove the city gallery altogether, since there is Wikimedia Commons album of each major city anyway? Saguamundi

It's not really reasonable to have a hard-and-fast policy about what photos are allowed or not allowed. I think it most cases, one slum picture (if any) is fine (depending on how prevalent slums are in that city), per WP:WEIGHT. Future edit warring on the article will result in blocks, but for now, it is fully protected. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give your opinion at [1]? Thanks. EEng (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was previously indefinitely semi-protected before the full protection was applied. Would you mind if it was re-applied instead of a temporary protection or would you rather give unprotection a chance after the current protection expires? Elockid ^(Talk) 17:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with indef semi; probably a good idea for this one. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, What do you don't like about my edits? 204.174.87.29 (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edits themselves aren't the problem; given the repetitive nature of them, I suspected that you were using a bot or some sort of automation to make them. Bots need to be approved first and run from a named account. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did them by hand since they have to be adjusted and no bot have done it yet. 204.174.87.29 (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry to bother you then. Keep up the good work. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted one of those linkspam edits, but you had the others all zapped by the time I got to the editor's contributions. LadyofShalott 15:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admin rollback helps a lot. ;) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have that - you're still faster! :) LadyofShalott 15:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't have it on my watchlist anymore, but a quick look at Tao Lin and it seems that the article has the same problem with meatpuppets you mentioned months ago. Thanks. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Man you work fast! Well, thanks for the attention to the issue. The article is under consistent attack from either the subject or other meats. His wife's page is about to be deleted due to failing notability (among other things). The "publication press" mentioned, as well as the "film project" are both produced by this husband-wife team, and have tactfully been using WP for a vehicle for promotion. You're likely aware of these facts by now anyway. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. Seems that "MDMA Films" was nominated for deletion and the decision was to go ahead and do it. This "film company" is comprised of Tao Lin and his wife. He also seems to have a "publishing house" called Mumu, and this does not qualify as notable, as far as I see. So I had removed entries but they returned swiftly. May be a good idea to place it under protection as you did before. Who knows. Thanks.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's OK to mention those things on his page, but they certainly wouldn't be notable enough to warrant their own page. I focus on keeping fluff out of the article and keeping Lin and his buddies from spamming his name all over the rest of Wikipedia as much as possible. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. Speaking of his buddies, this [2] person seems to qualify and doesn't seem notable. Also a couple of technical questions. One, isn't having the external links to the items I deleted a violation of WP's policy on external links? Next, if the article was deleted shouldn't it not have a red link anymore? Thanks.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please reinstate this article. You just speedied it under A7. Since it is a documentary film (in production), and not a "real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content" it wasn't eligible for A7 deletion. Although rather favorably presented, the article wasn't unsalvageably promotional, the reason for the original speedy nomination. It's like not notable enough to keep an article yet, but that requires a standard deletion process. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I speedied under A7 and G11, in that it was written like an advertisement and made no claims of being notable. It may not technically be A7, but it was certainly G11. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I originally placed the G11, I obviously concur. I tend to get concerned when an account with 'publicist' or 'PR' creates a page, and even more when that page has a non-neutral tone. I was tempted to delete it outright myself, but decided to give it the chance of a second opinion. I did give the editor who created it some links to think about, and if they would like to recreate it using a more neutral film article as their model (such as the movie they linked in the section following this) or have the text of the deleted article to play with in a sandbox I would be willing to assist them with that. Syrthiss (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me, what we did wrong in adding "Miracle at Donna" documentary film and why it was deleted.

It did nothing different then any other film that has been posted.

My other film "Down for Life" was written exactly the same.

Please explain so we can correct

very best Steven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenpublicist (talk • contribs) 19:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Notability, WP:Advertising, and WP:COI. Down for Life (film) meets notability criteria, as it's given non-trivial coverage in reliable sources (i.e., NY Times, etc). The article did have some PR fluff which I removed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the question in the 'discussion' section [[3]] I am unable to edit, and I was curious if you thought it was worthy enough to be fixed in the info box or I suppose updated?

Thank you for your time

24.147.97.180 (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)SirWence[reply]

Looks like it's been fixed. I added it to another section as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are deleting factual information that is part of a films bio, I dont know who you are but you are really making me angry, we are contributing factual reliable source information, it seems you are trying to get paid to add information that can be added for free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicanoone (talk • contribs) 00:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "do not add mini-bios to articles about a film" do you not understand? I don't get paid for anything Wikipedia related, unlike yourself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you are deleting factual imdb credits of producers and directors on a film verified site you can call them bios, but they are no different then any other film or its production team category!!!!!Chicanoone (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC) i have now sent several emails to other admins to see what you are doing, that is wrong!!! Chicanoone (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listen carefully. Detailed biographical information about a person belongs in the article about that person. It does not belong in an article about a film that person was somehow involved with. P.S. I've been an admin since 2006. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your behavior should get you on adminsytative review, i have sent several messages to others, you are deleting bio inormation that is factual credit information on a films article, then you are also deleting that same info from a persons articleChicanoone (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has it occurred to you that I might be well-versed in Wikipedia policies given the duration of my involvement here? I deal with conflict-of-interest editing every day, so I may not be as patient as some Wikipedia editors. However, I have attempted to explain the issues, but my explanations are falling on deaf ears. Please take some time to read some of our policy links, namely WP:COI, WP:NOTFILM, WP:SPA, and WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's back. You seem to be the admin watching over these pages, so I figured I should notify you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie, the link which I posted (the one below at wiki "Goundamani") is not an advertising one and absolutely no commercial value. It is a discussion forum, where one can read and discuss about the person about whom the wiki talks about. Hence I request you to re-instate the link.

http://www.mayyam.com/talk/showthread.php?8773-Vaazhappala-Kaamedy-Kalagam-HO-NiRuvanar-VaLLal-Goundamani — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMI2011 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained on my talk page why the link is not appropriate (i.e., we rarely accept links to forums). I'm not discussing it further, and if you continue to add it from this or you named account, both accounts will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, why did you delete the edit that listed Radomir Mihajlović (Smak) under the names of guitarists? He appears to be a notable guitarist, based on the wikipedia article, which has been around for some time. It's nothing to me, not my edit, and I know nothing of this guitarist, but was just curious as I was patrolling my watched pages for vandalism. Thanks! 78.26 (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, when I looked at the edit, I could've sworn the name and band were both redlinks. Let me take another look at the revision and I'll fix it if required. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• [4] Administrators normally remove that from the edit history. Threatening to rape someone is something I think normally gets removed from public viewing, even in the edit history. Dream Focus 22:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noticed you had issue with my external links. In both instances, these links were actually sources that I referenced so that I can properly attribute both a quote and a statistic that I included in my edits. Since they are indeed external links, would it have been wise to leave them out? Is there something wrong with my content otherwise?

Additionally, the edits I made to "Cultural Diversity" are due to the fact that the the paragraph submitted was factually inaccurate, unsourced, and overly verbose. Check out the Twin Peaks page on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_peaks), where you can read the following: "In its first broadcast as a regular one-hour drama series, Twin Peaks scored ABC's highest ratings in four years in its 9:00 pm Thursday time period." This is at conflict with the original post you just restored, that reads "Twin Peaks, for example, did not have broad appeal but stayed on the air for two seasons because it attracted young professionals with money to spend." Again, not only factually inaccurate (Twin Peaks was a commercial success, as noted), but also not properly cited. I attempted to edit this post by providing sourced information and examples.

Thank you for your thoughts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnsanfilippo (talk • contribs) 00:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa. I jumped to the conclusion that longtail.com was just another non-notable blog, but as Wired is a pretty respectable source (and as you note correctly, the previous section was unsourced), I'll restore it. Sorry about that; it's just that typically, when a new editor adds a link to a source I don't recognize, I assume it's a WP:COI situation (which it is 99% of the time). Got lazy this time and didn't check it out first. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohnoitsjamie. You might want to take a look at this edit. It didn’t quite work. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 18:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You recently deleted an addition that I made to the List of Social Enterprises page. I added an external link to a new social enterprise Marketplace which helps people search through dozens of social enterprises across Canada. Our site is operated by a non-profit organization, and our intent is only to increase awareness and provide examples of successful businesses that are making great contributions to their communities through the social enterprise model.

I understand Wikipedia's no external link spamming policy. However, it's unlikely that Wikipedia will ever offer a more comprehensive list of Canadian social enterprises than our Marketplace. If you still don't think our link belongs on the List of Social Enterprises page, is there somewhere else I could put it? Perhaps the External Links section of the Social Enterprise page would be a more acceptable place?

Please let me know. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccednet (talk • contribs) 18:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can put in on the Dmoz directory. Wikipedia is not a directory. Also see WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why it wouldn't be acceptable to place our site under the External Links section of the Social Enterprise page. The existing list is made up of independent organizations, like ours. If people want to learn more about social enterprises, they would likely want to see operating, successful examples, which our Marketplace provides. Anyone can add their social enterprise to our directory, I don't see how this is a conflict of interest. comment added by Ccednet (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think you read the WP:COI link. I'm not commenting on it further. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you mind taking a look at these two false SPI cases ([5], [6]) opened by a suspected sock himself. Cheers! —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 18:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly are you, wiki police? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngmd (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am an administrator. Need to know anything else? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just wondering if [7] in your opinion qualifies as a subject that is notable. I see she's a blogger. And there's been one magazine article about her. Seems that from what I know of WP policy regarding notability this usually doesn't cut it. I tagged it for deletion but that was removed. In order to avoid an edit war I was curious as to your opinion. You have much more expertise in this area then I do. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm usually very suspect regarding the notability of bloggers, I think there's a good chance she'd survive an WP:AFD with either a "Keep" or "No consensus" given the sources provided in the article. You could try, though. I'd personally be somewhere between "weak keep" and "weak deleted," would have to dig a little deeper. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just a note to ask you to take a look at this new user's contributions. It seems odd to me that a new user immediately begins nominating a bunch of computer programming language articles for deletion. Judging by the manner in which he is doing so, he clearly has no idea what he's doing. My first impulse was to say it's plain vandalism, but maybe not. His AfDs have no chance, since they are not properly written or formatted. Somebody might want to give him a stern talking to. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ohnoitsjamie. Can I ask a small favor? Can you indefinitely semi-protect my talk page? Burgz33 came for a visit today, and I'd just like to discourage any random IP vandalism, homophobic or racist slurs and the like from him in the future. Thanks. --Yankees76 ^Talk 21:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Let me know if you need to change it at any time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks bud. --Yankees76 ^Talk 21:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:75.12.158.12. I'll consider myself warned for outing him, the personal attacks and the like. But I couldn't resist. However, you may just want to protect that page before anything stupid happens there. Cheers. --Yankees76 ^Talk 00:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as tempting as it can be to give it back to them, it's better to ignore. Personally, I find ignoring more ultimately fulfilling anyway. It's a tacit way of saying "yeah, whatever, go away, boring." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your offer to help with San Diego articles. I found this article about an artist in San Diego who seems to be not notable under WP:Artist so I put it up for deletion. However an IP removed the deletion template. Since the same IP also removed the PROD and stated on the article talk page that the article is within the scope of wikipedia but said nothing about the notability of the artist. The IP also has a similar edit history with the creator of the article User:Wikiuserz rights

I wanted to place a warning/template on the IP's talk page about not removing templates but it is hard for me to believe the editor is acting in good faith. I just wanted advice or help on what to do next. Thanks XinJeisan (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template that's appropriate here is {{subst:uw-afd1}}, which I've added to the IP's talk page. It's likely that the IP user has a WP:COI; that's most often the case when you see behavior like that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! XinJeisan (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, it seems many (all) of the artists/organizations related to the Center for Research in Computing and the Arts at UCSD that have wikipedia pages have similar COI/POV issues. XinJeisan (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've never inserted anything on Wikipedia, but was certainly startled that you deleted the link to "Search Engine Optimization and User Behavior", http://www.hastingsresearch.com/net/09-SEO-ELIS-encyclopedia-article.html. The article is straight out of - the Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Third Edition - published by Taylor & Francis, which has been around for a couple of hundred years - was edited by Marcia Bates, former head of GSEIS, Graduate School of Education and Information Sciences at UCLA - hence definitely meets "no original research" encyclopedia standards - and the company on whose website it's posted doesn't even sell SEO services Beats me how this could be spam. 72.251.74.176 (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Carl Jacobs[reply]

Hmmm...you make a good point. On second thought, seems like a reasonable link to include. Forgive my haste in removing the link; 99.999% of links that get added to that article are spammy, it's easy to get trigger-happy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I can imagine that page gets more than its fair share of link spam. But should I put it back in? And if so, should I leave out the link to Taylor and Francis (being as that page is selling the $3,000 print version!) 72.251.74.176 (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Carl Jacobs[reply]

I already restored it. I don't think the second link is necessary. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I'm now fully recovered from my temporary conspiracy theory attack. :)

Hey Jamie, the IP who used to vandalise my userspace is back. It would be great if you could semi protect my user page for some time again (though he has targeted only my talk page as of now). BTW, the IP also added your talk page template as one of his edits. (i.e. {{User:Ohnoitsjamie/Talktemp}} ). It looks nice, and I plan to retain it. Hope it is OK with you! Regards, TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 08:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 17:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jamie, i would like to report an article which i am sure is an advertisement. this article [Radio Indigo] which is located at Bangalore, India is written in a promotional manner. I had a doubt that it might be the radio station people or their public relations. The article which was initially plain and written by a wikipedian or someone had facts about the radio station which didn't go down well with the station i guess. A sudden change of the article was seen which seemed more promotional by claiming themselves as the "One and Only all English radio station in India" is completely Untrue as there are stations like 'Chennai live 104.8 based out of Chennai, India.(Currently there is no article relating to it although you might find news related to it on google. Well i looked up on the history page of Radio Indigo of who edited and found out the a person from Indigo did meddle with the article a person who goes by the name of 'Divya Gowda' is a quite a popular employee who actively takes part in promotions as she is the senior manager of digital inititatives. you can find a reference to her here [Ms.Divya Gowda on Radio indigo's about us page] . Shes done a lot of initiatives i see. After the article got marked to get wikified they actually removed the link to wikipedia which was there previously. Activities like these would make wikipedia's purpose defeated. As they try to use it as promotional vehicle. I kindly request to do the needful by either locking the page after refining it which i would be glad to help. or any other action. Thank you. a Concerned Wikipedian. - Spoiltsport (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie! I mentioned an edit by you in the following posting I made on the Talk page for an IP address. See HERE. This was in relation to edits made to Frogger. Dolphin (t) 09:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you have been misled. Please read my latest comment on this matter - you may need to don earphones first - and feel free to look through my edit history for a single example of misspelling User:Ion Zone's name. --rpeh •T•C•E• 23:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

&c --rpeh •T•C•E• 00:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that table ?

alright jamie, i managed to revert the table at last without changing anything else ,sorry about earlier cock ups. thewafer

I cack-handedly tried to revert some vandalism on Xenu, missing the fact that you'd done it already. I didn't mean my edit summary to imply that your edit was vandalism. Apologies! MartinPoulter (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing to merge these talk pages to Wikipedia:Blocked external links and subpages. The main reason is to remove the implication of "spam" and provide a somewhat more visible and centralized location, and a slightly more sane process. I am contacting you because you are or have been involved with spam blacklisting in the past. Please post any comments you may have at Wikipedia talk:Blocked external links. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the first editor to warn User talk:Jess2234‎ why s/he considered links to a major fashion magazine in fashion-related articles to be spam. They referred me to the relevant policy page, but that doesn't seem to me to fit the case. I've always thought of my own habit of adding external links to New York Times obituaries, or National Portrait Gallery portraits, to be adding sources, rather than "promoting" the New York Times or the National Portrait Gallery. Is there any particular reason to think that Jess2234's edits are any different in kind? (Has some sort of IP-trace established that s/he is making edits from Vogue's offices, for instance?) And why is a major fashion magazine not a good source for articles on fashion? (How is it different from, say, newspaper reports for other public events?) --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The links aren't a problem per se; the problem is an obvious single purpose, likely conflict of interest account doing nothing but adding the links. We've blocked people for canvassing links to educational sites as well for the same reason. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a more helpful answer than I got from the other person I asked. How would one go about establishing that Jess2234 is or is not one of the "well-intentioned editors with a niche interest" that WP:SPA describes? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When nearly 100% of a user's edits are adding a link, or a statement referenced to the same link. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!
Best wishes, I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ (21:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Jamie, today you deleted an addition I made to the Forex wiki article concerning algorithmic trading (as well the entire section subsequently but that's another story). Anyway in the spirit of information sharing could you please give me a little more information as to why it was removed? I'm aware that the section of the site the reference linked to is entitled 'blog' but the site is a major Forex Trading site and an excellent source of Forex information in general. It's not like I linked to some guy's Twitter profile. I don't see how having absolutely no information on algorithmic trading is more beneficial for readers than information that links to a well recognized Forex Trading site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roeeric51 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the blurb at the top of the page regarding spam links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user continues misusing his talk page despite reverts and the block you made.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articles Paternity (House), Occam's Razor (House), Maternity (House), Damned If You Do, The Socratic Method (House), Fidelity (House), Poison (House), DNR (House), Histories (House), Detox (House), Sports Medicine (House), Cursed (House), Control (House), Mob Rules (House), Heavy (House), Role Model (House), Babies & Bathwater, Kids (House), Love Hurts (House) and Honeymoon (House) are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paternity (House) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 14:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohnoitsjamie

I just added an external link and get removed. Personal, I have found that the content on that external link webpage is not commercial and it talks about the pros and cons of Hormonal Birth Control, which I believe is related to the topic of the wiki page I added this link, and it should contributed more info regarding this topic from an objective perspective. I am not too sure why it is being removed. Just want to learn why so that I know what I did wrong and learn how to contribute to wiki the next time.

Thanks Weeksgo

See the blurb at the top of the page, as well as WP:ELNO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it."

I have read your comments. However, the link I added has nothing to do with any affiliate or promote a product at all. So I am confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weeksgo (talk • contribs) 18:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:SPA and WP:COI. I'm not replying further. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ohnoitsjamie, the WP:SPA helps. I am new to wiki so not too sure how should I contribute. Thanks for your direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weeksgo (talk • contribs) 18:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jamie. Thank you for your email. I'm an admirer of his work, so the message was very nice to receive. I'll be interested to see what you come up with. Thank you again.Dalmeny (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohnoitsjamie. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination), you may be interested in Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities. There are disputes over who should and who shouldn't be included in the list. Cunard (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, went and reverted 100% of his edits to all pages. You caught some on "Body fat percentage" but missed others. On "Body fat percentage" I went back to a known good revision and then applied one correction. Not too familiar with the process of dealing with abusive contributors here, so if there was anything else I should have done please let me know. brontide (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning those up, thought I'd got them all. I gave him a level 4 warning for self promotion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie, could you please reinstate my twinkle previledges. Apparently the admin who revoked seems to be against me and was infact very rude. I promise I would not misuse it. If at any time you feel I have misused it, you may revoke twinkle previledges even without notifying me. Thanks, —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 16:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For me to unilaterally reinstate them after another admin revoked them would be wheel warring, which I do not wish to engage in. You should first try to iron out why they were revoked in the first place; i.e., talk to the revoking admin, and/or seek additional opinions from others rather than simply asking someone else to reverse it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - after looking at the edit that resulted in your loss of Twinkle privileges, I'm inclined to agree with Toddst1; the edit you reverted was clearly not vandalism. If it was factually incorrect, unsourced, etc., the edit summary should have reflected that instead. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. But I have a request from you. Could you please tell this user to stop removing Air India Regional from airport destination articles. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 17:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already warned them. I don't know anything about the dispute, so you're going to have to explain it to me before I warn anyone. Do you have a reliable source to support your position? If so, I'll be happy to warn them if they continue to remove sourced information. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jamie, User talk:SQ412 has not stopped removing Air India Regional destinations from airport articles despite 3 users (including me) asking him not to. The fact is that Air India Regional was a subsidiary of Indian Airlines and when once Indian Airlines was merged into Air India on Feb 27th, Air India Regional became a subisidiary of Air India and has code share agreement with Air India, but remains a separate airline. Despite explaining to this user, he is continuing to remove the same. Please do something. Thanks, —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 06:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jamie. You're really a nice admin unlike Toddst1, who is rude and bites users who are relatively newer than him. Would you please discuss with some other admins regarding my access to twinkle. I would be glad. If the outcome is no access, I would still respect the desicion. Thanks, —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 17:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie please help me on the above issue. Thanks, —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 05:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, as I said before, Toddst1 was correct in noting that you were using Twinkle inappropriately. I think the best thing to do would be for you to file a new request for access to it, explaining why your access was revoked, and that you now intend to use it in complete adherence to the usage policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But where do I request access for the same? —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 15:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you request access for it the first time? I've never given/removed Twinkle access, and am not all that familiar with it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had started using twinkle by enabling it in my preferences. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 17:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you deleted the popular culture section I added? The item was properly sourced.--Wlmg (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Avoid_trivia_sections. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean that every popular culture section on wikipedia has to go? Should I change the section heading name to other?--Wlmg (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases it's appropriate (i.e., a subject is frequently seen in notable instances of popular culture). In this case, it doesn't belong in the article. It's a single piece of trivia, and just a way of getting the whole "honey badger meme" snuck into the artick. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On March 3 you gave User:Sourguy3665 a "last warning" for vandalism on the New Mexico article. Today he edited again - to vandalize New Mexico. With the exception of some test edits, I see no non-vandalism edits from that user at all. What action should be taken? Huon (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourguy3665 has left the building. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie, this user is going on adding a blog in the external links section of the article claiming that he edits the blog and has correct info. Could you please explain to him that a blog is not an RS. Thanks, —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 15:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie, despite you giving a warning to this user, he has added the blog again in the external link section.—Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 02:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ohnoitsjamie, you are claiming that placing companies that supply Low Lever Laser Therapy product is promotional...Can you please tell me why? I am not making any claims about the efficacy of their products, just that these products are FACTUALLY sold. I can supply numerous references on the efficacy of LLLT if you wish for me to make citings? Warmly Jeteye (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a product directory. We don't need to list examples of products. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no list on the Entrepreneur page. There is not even a link to a list. When I added a short list, you promptly removed it as being misplaced and unnecessary. What is the proper place for a list of entrepreneurs? And why not have even a link to that list? Why is a list unnecessary? How is one to find real-life entrepreneurs? — Preceding comment added by Robin chubb (talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Robin chubb (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few specialized lists out there; [8]. The reason there is not a general list is probably because determining whether or not someone is an entrepreneur (versus a plain-old business person) is nebulous at best. The article on Entrepreneur does not need an arbitrary list of examples (especially in the references section, where you put it). See WP:NOT. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Welhaven appears to be a sockpuppet of Mbhiii who you blocked a few months ago. O noticed this at Bootleggers and Baptists which he has edited from an IP many times. Fdr2001 (talk) 02:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this now. Do you have any stronger behavioral evidence? I'm not seeing quite enough WP:DUCK to warrant a block without an WP:SPI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before it was mostly his older pattern of edits and the style. However now its that he's reverting some of the same articles as Mbhiii such as Bootleggers and Baptists and Redistribution of wealth plus the revert edits are also coming from IP's like 74.162.150.226 and 74.162.153.174 which are in the same set as Mbhiii used. User:Ritterhude also looks like one of Mbhiii's socks and are tag teaming on a couple of articles. They even initially had the same user page when first created, though the Ritterhude one is now different. They were also created around the same time and shortly after other Mbhiii socks were blocked. Fdr2001 (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this to bottom of page where I should've added this before. Sorry if this is not needed, but I thought it might be lost in the other comments. Fdr2001 (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll go ahead and block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Sir, I added some text in the 'History' and 'Religion' section of the article Jat people about an hour ago; and to justify the text added by me, I used a reference, which you consider as a questionable source. Sir, no disrespects to you, but could you justify yourself in calling Haryana-Online a questionable source! And it is easily verifiable as well; just a click! And, I think it is open source of knowledge, so is there any problem in copy-paste from this one? Though, I do personally believe that it's text is very much limited in order to describe the Jats as compared to many other sources on the internet, no doubt about that! Sir, I would like mention here that I am not trying to questioning your experience and seniority here, not at all; but I would definitely like to hear from you regarding this one. I am looking forward for your reply. Thanks! Abstruce (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per our WP:COPYRIGHT rules, we do not allow cut-and-paste content from copyrighted sources. When I referred to the site as "questionable," I simply meant that it probably doesn't meet our WP:Reliable sources guidelines; I wasn't implying that it's a bad site. Examples of reliable sources are journal articles, articles published by notable educational institutions, news stories from notable news agencies, etc. See WP:Reliable sources for more info. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I will take care of the fact in future. As per the above guidelines, I believe that it should be all-right to use the reference of a great historian like Col. James Tod; who truly dedicated his life in researching the history of the Indians; but I would like to know your views also, about this source. I would be really grateful to you, if you could take a bit of your time to reply to this one. I am 99.99% sure about this one, but I would really appreciate if you could just take a moment in replying to this one as well. It means a lot to me, I am eagerly waiting for your reply. Thanks! Abstruce (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference isn't properly formatted (see other examples on the page for properly constructing a reference), but Tod is a noted historian in the field so it seems reasonable to me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I will. Thank you so much! Abstruce (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie will you be kind enough to be more precise with the reason why you have issued warning on my Talk page? Tariq hilal (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Tariq hilal[reply]

You'll need a better source than a guest editorial. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pls be specific, what guest editorial are you talking about? Tariq hilal (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Tariq hilal[reply]

Your response awaited. Tariq hilal (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Tariq hilal[reply]

The. one. you. used. to. source. your. statement. I'm not discussing it further.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this too your satisfaction: http://www.blacklistednews.com/index.php?news_id=11761 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tariq hilal (talk • contribs) 10:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie. I'd like to ask you about your position on this information which Awindom is repeatedly reinstating without explaining either in edit summaries or talk pages. I don't want to break 3RR or pressure you to do my dirty work, but I'd like your opinion on this matter. Also, how should we proceed with Awindom, as he's not responsive to any communication but is editing busily while having a likely conflict of interest? Zakhalesh (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up some of it. His COI entry will be deleted if the article about himself is deleted (which is likely). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a report on him at WP:3RRNB for edit warring, seeing that is his only mode of communication. I find it impossible to collaborate with people who won't bother even to use edit summaries or otherwise communicate with other editors. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pls be specific, what guest editorial are you talking about. SORRY THIS POST HAS BEEN WRONGLY POSTED HERE. PLS IGNORE IT. Tariq hilal (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Tariq hilal[reply]

You recently deleted a brief addition to the topic of forum spam, saying that it needed to be sourced. However, on the very page, there are numerous explanations of spam without any source whatsoever, including an entire section that openly states that it is unverified and unsourced.

In fact, the very first section "Types", which is where my brief addition was included...there is not a single source or citation for verification (which is the reason you deleted my addition).

Forum spambots surf the web, looking for guestbooks, wikis, blogs, forums and any other web forms to submit spam links to the web forms it finds. These spambots often use OCR technology to bypass CAPTCHAs present. Some spam messages are targeted towards readers and can involve techniques of target marketing or even phishing, making it hard to tell real posts from the bot generated ones. Not all of the spam posts are meant for the readers; some spam messages are simply hyperlinks intended to boost search engine ranking.

Most forum spam consists of links to external sites, with the dual goals of increasing search engine visibility in highly competitive areas such as weight loss, pharmaceuticals, gambling, pornography, real estate or loans, and generating more traffic for these commercial websites. Some of these links contain code to track the spambot's identity if a sale goes through, when the spammer behind the spambot works on commission.

Spam posts may contain anything from a single link, to dozens of links. Text content is minimal, usually innocuous and unrelated to the forum's topic, or in a very old thread that is revived by the spammer solely for the purpose of spamming links. Some text is included to prevent the post being caught by automated spam filters that prevent posts which consist solely of external links from being submitted. Full banner advertisements have also been reported.[by whom?]

Alternately, the spam links are posted in the user's signature, in which case the spambot will never post. The link sits quietly in the signature field, where it is more likely to be harvested by search engine spiders than discovered by forum administrators and moderators.

Since November 2006, a very destructive forum and wiki spam attack has been propagated by inserting into comments redirect domains with an automated posting script like XRumer. These domains redirect a user to pornographic websites. If a user clicks on the image or attempts to close the Website an ActiveX codec will be downloaded as a Zlob Trojan. The spambot can often bypass many of the safeguards administrators use to reduce the amount of spam posted.

Not a single source exists in this entire section that describes the types of spam.

What is different about all those other unsourced, unverified contributions that makes them allowable? I wish to conform to Wiki standards...but at the present, it seems rather arbitrary. Since it is the case that different community forums identify and define spam in different ways...are you wanting a link to many of these forums which expressly have a rules of conduct or spam identification explanation?

Regardless, I'd like to know why some unsourced content is acceptable while other unsourced content is not. Not trying to be combative, I just do not understand the distinction being made and I'm seeking assistance so that I can contribute to Wikipedia appropriately.

Thank you,

Apokalupsis (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've posted the same thing on MrOllie's page after being warned. If there is material on the current version you believe should be sourced, tag it. If you continue to ignore warnings from multiple editors regarding original research, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jaimie, Wikipedia's BLP policy lists over 30 items. Which of these did I violate with my addition to the Jackson bio? Also, what is wrong with the published source I cited. Thank you, 21stcenturion (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my job to read the policy to you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you are a new user, I'll tell you what you did wrong. What you added was pretty controversial and you need very strong sources for additions to BLPs like that.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I've been waiting for that ref all day. :-) --CliffC (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit you removed information about Voices which cited a primary source, while leaving behind a bunch of information about other newspapers (and a blog) for which no source was cited. Why did you treat these two pieces of information so differently? —Stepheng3 (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "nn" in my edit summary is shorthand for not notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a criterion for creating an entire article about some subject, not for a brief mention of a subject in a related article. Please read Wikipedia:Notability and revert yourself. —Stepheng3 (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no plans to revert myself. Linking every start-up blog or weekly is a violation of WP:EL and WP:ADVERT. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You choice of information to delete seems odd. You deleted mention of a progressive newspaper with a 16-year (print) publication history, but you didn't see a problem with the "notability" of Onward State (a weblog) or Phroth (a 5 issue-per-year student-run humor magazine sourced with an out-of-date extlink). I've found a secondary source which lists all the local newpapers -- that should alleviate your Wikipedia:External links concern.—Stepheng3 (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of semi-protecting Oshika Peninsula just for three hours to see if the IP hopper gets bored. Do you think I'm jumping the gun? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be onboard with it; only problem is he's targeting a bunch of articles. I'm continuing to block IPs as they pop up. He'll eventually run out or get tired of going through the release/renew DHCP process. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that as well. Multiple targets + multiple IPs = one big mess. I'm going to apply brief protection for the affected articles, which combined with the blocking should give the RC patrollers a break. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Colorado - is incomplete and I attempted to add a local band (That is becoming more nationally known) The Epilogues http://www.facebook.com/theepiloguesband?sk=app_2405167945 I have heard their song on many radio stations and I believe they should be added to the music of Colorado page, especially since 3OH!3 is on the page...the Epilogues are just as big a band! As a LOCAL Coloradoan, I think I should know! I don't appreciate the accusation of supposed Vandalism when the Vandalism wiki page CLEARLY states "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism" I was trying to add a REAL local BAND to the page not just hack away and screw it up! I'm aware there is no wiki page for The Epilogues yet but I'm sure there will be soon enough. So my point to this is I think that The Epilogues should be added to the Music of Colorado page if you need more references then here is their homepage http://www.theepilogues.com/ and you can also Google them and you will find quite a few things about them including a popular professionally made music video!

TiffYG2133

Until there is evidence the band is notable per WP:MUSIC, they do not belong on the page, period. The vandalism warning was for your cheery "prick" comment. We don't tolerate personal attacks here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't know how to use talk pages.

However, you reverted my edits to "the shocker", and diplomatically called them "tests". Bravo for that, I know there is a lot of vandalism on here. But those two colloquial phrases I introduced on there, as crude as they may be, are actual slang terms for this gesture. I'd like them edited back, please. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.75.218 (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie, this user is adding material to the article which is completely unsourced and looks more like OR. Please have a look into it. Thanks, —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 17:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie, I have just added references for additional readings to an article (Fine art photography) and you deleted them. I am a new contributor to Wikipedia, so I would like very much to know the guidelines to adding material to published articles. Being a professional researcher and college professor, I definitely do not want to violate any editing or publishing roles of Wikipedia. Best wishes (Saharnsaleem (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Please read the blurb titled "Why did you remove my external links?" at the top of my talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jamie for the reply. I am not arguing to publish the external links that you reverted, but to defend my belief that both articles are not spam or advertising in nature. Both articles are highly professional and are published in the official journal of a non-for profit professional organization (Photographic Soceity of America) (PSA).I added them because I really believed that readers would have benefited a lot from reading them. Thank you again. (Saharnsaleem (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The problem isn't so much with the links themselves; the problem is when a user systematically add links to the same sites, which is viewed as attempting to promote a site. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jamie for the explanation. My intention is not at all to promote to a site. I am just interested in this topic that's why I visited this article, and I happen to know about references that I believe they are beneficial to readers. References in this topic are still scarce. Thank you any way for your remark, as I told you my intention is NOT to violate any roles of publishing. Have a nice time. (Saharnsaleem (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Why was COKOBELLA.COM article deleted?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunnys (talk • contribs) 00:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is NON-NOTABLE. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for ADVERTISING. Basically, the same reasons already enumerated on your talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are not ADVERTISING. Everything in the article was a fact and not written in ADVERTISING form. We are not in any way attempting to use Wikipedia as an advertising method. I did a comparable to other pages on Wikipedia and all are pretty much standard to what was implemented in our article. How can this be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunnys (talk • contribs) 00:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, please read WP:WEB, our notability policy. Also read WP:COI. I'm not discussing this further. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a wikipedia creator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.75.82.17 (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In your block, should maybe you could indicate e.g. a suspected sock-master? (If this was a newbie, your block sounded somewhat harsh, imho.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 18:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was obviously User:Moulton, who has a fascination with posting boring drivel on that page. Tagged as such on user page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for the explanation!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 18:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ohnoitsjamie. You were wonderfully quick getting the warning to the newbie who vandalized the Dracula article. I was trying to leave a smart aleck edit summary stating that they weren't that amazing if all they were going to do is mess with articles. Thanks for your vigilance in this situation and others. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happens to me all the time. Cheers! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im sory Jaimie It will not hapend again , and thanks for the exelent good conduct you use im very pleased —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.50.32.83 (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jamie, I wonder if it is possible to get reviewer and rollback privileges for my alternate account User:MikeLynch Public. I may have to edit from that account frequently for some days, so it would be convenient if those rights were added. Or do I have to meet the criteria separately for the alternate account? Regards, Yes Michael? •^Talk 15:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may be ignoring all rules, but I can't imagine why your alt account would have to go through the process all over again. Done! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yes Michael? •^Talk 15:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempting to understand your warning so I could learn from it in the future. Please explain. Koltorah (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CANVAS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is understood. On that note, perhaps you could assist? I simply do not know enough about Wikipedia to properly address the issues at hand. It is my opinion (which I think I have presented more than enough sources for), that the article in question is written in an extremely unfair and biased way. However, when I attempted to add sources an rectify misstatements, I was reverted over and over again. It appears there is one editor who is personally involved with the subject of the article, and will simply not allow anyone to add/rectify the material. When I attempted to resolve the issues through dialogue he simply ignored my key points and source materials. At this point I simply do not know Wikipedia procedure well enough, to know how to proceed. I sincerely would like the article to reflect a fair and unbiased image, but since anything I attempt to change is reverted by that editor- it appears intervention on the part of another editor is needed. Could you please assist? Koltorah (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been warned and subsequently blocked for edit warring. Plenty of editors have already explained the issue to you and posted numerous policy links. There's nothing for me to add. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake (as I have explained) which I appologize for, now I wish to bring a fair resolution to the matter. Could you please assist? Koltorah (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to need to work out content dispute with the editors currently engaged in the dispute. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely the problem. The only other editor actively involved, is the one in question (Avi). I don't know how there will be a possible resolution until a different, unbiased editor gets involved. Perhaps you are willing? Koltorah (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avi is an experienced admin. Even if he wasn't, I'd still side with him in this particular dispute, as he is correctly interpreting and applying Wikipedia policies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than willing to accept another opinion that is contrary to my own, if there is basis and reason. As of now, Avi has not supplied any explanation as to why he is ignoring at least five published newspaper articles that directly contradict the content and nature of the current wikipedia article. If you agree with him, please explain your position. Koltorah (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC) In addition, I would like to ask you, as an experienced admin, when an admin's accuracy and actions are questioned- what is the proper way to resolve. I assume you agree that no one is "above the law," including an "experienced admin". Koltorah (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It's already been explained to you. I'm not explaining it again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry? You explained to me why the five newspaper articles (for your convinience find them below for your verification) mentioned on the discussion page have been ignored? When? I'm really sorry, but please either explain it to me again or refer me to where you already explained it. "Attacks On Rabbi Tendler Surface" http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/18411

"An Inappropriate Process (Part II)" http://www.jewishpress.com/printArticle.cfm?contentid=17547

"Investigate The RCA" http://www.jewishpress.com/printArticle.cfm?contentid=18939

"The P'sak And The Response" http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/18942

"Dealing With Abuse Allegations: The Halachic Way - Or The Awareness Center Way?" http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/17651/

"Prominent Rabbi Resigns From RCA Over Defiance Of Bet Din" http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/18581 Koltorah (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roshanamila is posting blogspam again. Please spring into action, if you have a few moments. Many thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC) :It's urgently needed. I just reverted 4 more blogspam additions by this user (Roshonamila).Jasper Deng (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist blocked the user.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me to post this on wikipedia? I am getting only very agressive attacks. But it is an unique topic and I support it with many reliable references. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulmater (talk • contribs) 13:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ADVERT, WP:COI, and WP:SPA. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting non-notable dating websites. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin, you are expected to have a high level of good conduct here. I know you are stressed over having to discuss something repeatedly; however, such is one of the things of being an admin on Wikipedia. This is a good faith reminder.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my "conduct," if you are referring to the ridiculous verbose rap synopsis debate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how "ridiculous" the debate sounds, please AGF when looking in the discussion. I've been in worse discussions before and have handled them. Calling it disruptive when it's a good faith content dispute is not appropriate. It would be better to remind them of policies than to simply call it disruptive.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I stand by my adjectives as well. I'm quite tired of it, and am not bothering with the talk page anymore. If someone wants to file an ANI, I'll be happy to post the links to the last two ANIs (where there was a clear consensus that it was disruptive), as well as a link to the reddit discussion that resulted in the renewed interest in turning Wikipedia into Uncyclopedia. Otherwise, I'm not discussing it further, per WP:STICK. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jamie, sorry for bothering you with this small matter, but I'd be grateful if you could remove this revision, as it contains personal info of another editor. Regards, Yes Michael? •^Talk 17:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will do. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes Michael? •^Talk 18:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie this user is deliberately introducing factual errors in many airport articles by adding Guwahati as a destination ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]) to some airline(s) row, though the airline does not even fly to Guwahati. And in the Guwahati airport article, they have added some imaginary destinations. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 17:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not vandalism per se. The appropriate thing to do is give them several "unsourced" warnings {{subst:uw-unsor1}} ~~~~ , {{subst:uw-unsor2}} ~~~~, etc. If they continue to add information without supplying a sourced after a third or fourth warning, get back to me.

Well they are factual errors added to those articles. Looks like the user is either a resident of Guwahati or hails from there, and hence has been adding the city as a destination to one or more airlines in some airport articles. The edits look more like POV pushing of Guwahati to me. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 17:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, to be blocked, as user has to repeatedly engage in behavior despite at least three warnings in a situation like this (i.e., it's not obvious vandalism, or even obvious POV pushing, for that matter). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to block them, but to warn them. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 17:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be an admin to warn a user. You only have to be an admin to block them. I see you've already warned them once. If they continue, warn them with a higher level warning template (ie., uw-unsor1, uw-unsor2, uw-unsor3, uw-unsor4). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Would surely do that. Thanks, —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 17:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I wrote my addition about YouTube Personalities and you took off what I wrote quite quickly. You stated that I duplicated material. I'm wondering what you were referring to so I can make the correct changes. This is important to me as it is for a school assignment.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiesparkle (talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use the word duplicated. The main issue is that the article in question is a straightforward list of Youtube personalities. Such list articles don't need lengthy essays. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...for blocking those two IPs that were spamming my talk page. Perhaps my talk page needs semi-protection. But thanks for the blockage.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Occasionally, I'll search for phrases like "we provide" or "our industry" or "our customers". There's always a healthy amount of spamminess to be uncovered. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I try to be careful about speedies. Policy wise, any reasonable claim of notability disqualifies the article from speedy. Thanks again, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permanently banned user Techwriter2B appears to have resurfaced in the last few days using two IP addresses: 75.8.79.45 and 75.13.69.129. He/she made only one edit on April 6 using 75.8.79.45 which was to alter edits I had made to an article (Spectrum (arena)) on which I have been making a considerable number of recent contributions. All of the edits made with 75.13.69.129 were made today to the Wisconsin article which he/she has frequently edited in the past. Both IPs resolve to SBC Internet Services DSL in Meridian, CT, (see here and here), the same servers he/she has used before. I have placed "suspected sockpuppet tags" on the user and talk pages of both IP accounts. Thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boom goes the dynamite. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it sure does! Thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the guidance and information you sent me. I wish to help Wikipedia and I will abide. I appreciate your help. JohnnyJr — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyJr (talk • contribs) 20:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here you reverted a very obviously constructive edit without giving any reason. Here you then removed a reliable source from an otherwise unsourced article while claiming that it is not reliable and threatening the editor who added it with a block. This is of course unacceptable behaviour, and I hope you have learned something since then.

Pagat.com is a non-commercial encyclopedia of card games, maintained by John McLeod, who with Michael Dummett wrote a very influential book on card game history. The site is not just cited throughout Wikipedia's card game articles, it is also recommended and cited extensively in David Parlett's books, including those of a scientific character (which appear with Oxford University Press). Hans Adler 08:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I am contacting you simply out of curiosity as to why my contribution was deleted. I referred to a (homonymous) song inspired by the novel 'Under the Volcano', composed by a greek band (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diafana_Krina) that has already broken up, so there was no commercial interest whatsoever! Thanks for your time! Ciao Toothyapple (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it and linked it. We get a lot of submissions where non-notable bands are added in these sections, and I'd assumed this was the case here as the band name wasn't wikilinked. You can ignore the warning. Apologies, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie, Why did you revert the edits of User:Louisadelara for articles St. Brendan's Church (Bronx, New York)‎ and St. Mary's Cathedral (Portland)‎. Please provide an explanation as to why you deleted these edits (is this user known to have violations?). In both cases, the added information involved minor liturgical remodeling of ecclesiastical properties with named designers. Despite the fact that the information was un-cited and the user appears to be unregistered, it did not appear to be vandalism or self-promotion but rather the type of information anonymously left to augment obscure articles so as to be verified later. C.f: "m. St. Brendan's Church (Bronx, New York)‎; 19:49 . . (-89) . . Ohnoitsjamie (talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by Louisadelara (talk) to last version by Choster)" ---James R (talk) 10 April 2011

The edits were from a single purpose account intending to promote a non-notable artist. If the users continues to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, the account will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good catch. User:Louisadelara is apparently Mario Agustin Locsin y Montenegro according to his own user page. But I guess the edits would stand if they were cited(?).---James R (talk)11 Apr 2011

Well, probably not, per WP:COI, and notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user did not heed it... Jasper Deng (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm a little conflicted about it, but it was a final warning as you point out. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie, I've posted an RfC at Talk:Roger Scruton—see here—to ask whether the neutrality tag should remain on the article. There are a number of issues in dispute; if you could comment even on just one of them, or your overall impression of the article's balance, that would be very helpful. I'm leaving this note because you've edited the article or talk page, but if you have no interest in commenting, please feel free to ignore the request. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only ‘’’5 minutes’’’ cooldenny (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the history of the article, does it account for a full protection? I had requested the same at WP:RPP, but an admin declined and asked me to re-report if it continues. User:Nagarjuna198 has continued the same again. He continues to reinstate his edits though 2 other editors have disagreed with him. There is an on-going discussion on the article's talk page, but he still continues the same and he moreover seems to be very uncivil in his comments. Please see if the page can be fully protected to end the edit war. Thanks, —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 13:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie - as you were the admin who blocked User:Jtodesdude, I thought that I would bring this to you.

An unhelpful edit was done to the archive of my talk page at 22:44 on 15 April 2011 by IP editor 70.241.97.133. The edit was to change a reference on my talk archive from User talk:Jtodesdude to User talk:Toddy. It seems a very odd thing to do, and the only person I can think might have a reason to do this would be User:Jtodesdude, so I suspect that this IP is a sock of Jtodesdude.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smells sock-like enough to me. Blocked a week. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Toddy1 (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie, thanks for the guidance and information you sent as a result of the links I added. Since the pages I linked to are not commercial sales pitches I'll suggest their inclusion in the relevant article talk pages. I'm learning as I go here but appreciate your help. Davfox (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter if they're not "sales pitches." A commercial link is a commercial link, period. Also see our policies on WP:SPA and WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked for no fault of mine. Please read Andhra article before my edits. It was written by some personal agenda of some editor. I did right thing by fixing it. All his references are from blogs etc.. Also please see the discussion page. Please read the article prior to my edits and you will understand the chauvinistic tone of the article. Nagarjuna198 (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral third party here. Nagarjuna198, it does you no credit to post incorrect statements as "All his references are from blogs etc." As I stated on the talk page, most of Ramcrk's sources come from established newspapers. Also, as I've said before, comment on content not the contributor. There was a reason why you were blocked and Ramcrk wasn't. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But those statements about Telangana, Seemandhra are irrelevant in that article. Those newspaper references, Chauvinistic remarks made by some politicians like KCR need to be in the article? Neil, I dont understand why to are hellbent in supporting and protecting Ramcrk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagarjuna198 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, I really feel you are not being neutral. let the admin decide validity of his references prior to my change. Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

"I was blocked for no fault of mine." I blocked you. I looked at the history and the talk page. Obviously, I felt there was merit to block. If you continue to edit war against consensus and without using reliable sources, you will be blocked for a longer period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie, please watch Nagarjuna198's contribs. He doesn't seem to have stopped his edit war. I also noticed him edit warring and pov pushing without logging in and had given him a warning regarding the same here. Despite the warning, he continues his edit war with and without logging in. Thanks, —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 18:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any need for admin intervention just yet. I see you warned the user, which is good, though it doesn't appear they've edited since. If they are close to breaching WP:3RR, notify them and if they cross it you can report it to the 3RR noticeboard. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning the personal attack off of my talk page. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help out. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This editor seems to have covered the standard pledge to avoid COI editing and has proposed a new user name. I've unblocked for now and will watchlist. As always, if you disagree, please feel free to correct this action. Kuru (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your rationale. Thanks for letting me know. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie ... Please block User:207.172.112.3 for consistent and ongoing vandalism to the Philadelphia Flyers and other hockey related articles (see Special:Contributions/207.172.112.3) as well as abuse of other editors. (See [17]) Thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week. Let me know if he comes back after and resumes and we'll extend the block further. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The vandal appears to have possibly registered himself as "Abcty" and is continuing to vandalize the Flyers article. Centpacrr (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow up: He seems to have reversed his own issue so maybe not the same. Centpacrr (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not disruptive editing. It's changing something clearly wrong and biased towards reform judaism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.44.219 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revert it again and you will find yourself blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest with you, I agree with your wording more than that of the IP, but I still think that you were reverting other than to revert vandalism, and have opened an incident here Pi (Talk to me! ) 21:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained the reason for the block at the AN3 page, and am submitting the block for community review at WP:ANI#WP:AN3.  Sandstein  13:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie, I think you bit that newbie pretty badly. I left a note on his/her talk page to try to smooth things out a little. I have no opinion about your own block. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was put off by their initial edit, but I will admit that as they tried to moderate their response, I should have been a little less bitey and attempted to work with them regarding whether modifying the content was appropriate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I noticed that you have previously reverted an edit at Everybody Draw Mohammed Day to declare it an annual event. I've was having a conversation with a new WP:SPA about why it isn't inherently an annual event. The conversation has degraded into two editors flinging derogatory words at me. The degradation of the conversation has resulted in the two editors pushing to edit war which I won't have a part of. I'm leaving this message here for you and any other editors who have been involved with the subject being an annual event or not as an invitation to either join the conversation or simply edit the page as you see fit. Regardless of your opinion and how it compares to mine, I feel like the situation is degrading and more eyes on the situation will only help work things out. OlYeller^Talktome00:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]