User talk:Jamdonut

Dead air space
Hello, and thanks for your contributions. I've removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on dead air space, as the redirect did not meet our criteria for speedy deletion. If you find a redirect unhelpful, deleting the page won't solve the problem anyway.

It's always best to be very cautious before changing redirects, because one change can destroy hundreds or even thousands of links in other articles, but in this particular case I was able to turn the page into a disambiguation instead, to help you find what you're looking for. Kafziel Talk 18:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ipswich Martyrs
Saw your note, although there was little that really needed doing to tidy it. I'd forgotten this needed a photo, otherwise I'd have done it myself when I was in the park on Friday. I did add the relevant links for listed building status though. -- Ratarsed 15:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom
What made you move "United Kingdom" to the erroneous and unwiki "The United Kingdom of Britain". Article names of countries are supposed to have the most common name, articles names mustnot start with 'The', and the name you gave is not even the official one either. Please quickly undo this apparently undiscussed move. — SomeHuman 9 Apr2007 23:50 (UTC)

Stop your page move vandalism!
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. --Stephan Schulz 18:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm already blocked, but thanks for the warning. Jeez, WP:AGF. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamdonut (talk • contribs).
 * o ok heres a warning i'll let you back in dont do it again now chap y'hear? 8D --Golbez 18:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it says I am still blocked.
 * whoops, i'm sorry, there it's fixed :) --Golbez 19:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still blocked but the message has changed. I thought we had a deal?Jamdonut 19:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * i dunno why it ain't workin man, you should send an email to wikipedia or somethin --Golbez 19:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are trying to trick me. I think I need someone to  because this admin said one thing and now seems sarcastic to me?
 * Yes, you're right. That admin is playing tricks with you and it is inappropriate. However, your page moves are extremely malicious and I'd be inclined to deny any requests you have for unblocking. Can you at least explain your logic in your page moves?↔NMajdan &bull;talk 19:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see why I can't play with assholes and idiots when they open themselves up to it. --Golbez 20:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with NMajdan. An indefinite block may be a little steep here, but you've certainly earned yourself a day or two by causing all that trouble. Kafziel Talk 20:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You would propose he get the same block as someone who violates 3RR? What? No. --Golbez 20:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe an indefinite block was warranted given the nature of the user's page moves (see my comment and Stephan Schulz's comment further down). However, if the editor can state his reasoning for the page moves and/or a general explanation of his actions, I might consider lessening his block. After all, a block is not a punishment but a way to prevent damage to Wikipedia. If I and the other admins monitoring the situation feel this user no longer poses a threat to Wikipedia, the ban may be lifted.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 20:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the indefinite block was warranted at first, when the situation was unclear and crazy. Now I think it'd be best to decide on a finite amount of time. (For the record, I am one of the other admins monitoring the situation.) Kafziel Talk 20:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect, an indefinite block remains warranted. Do not coddle vandals, sir. --Golbez 20:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know you are. I originally just said I but I wanted to clarify as not to intend I was acting unilaterally on the issue. It was more aimed to Jamdonut. But, as I said, I would prefer hearing Jamdonut's reasoning before supporting a lessening of the block.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 20:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * AGF doesn't mean "blindly allow obvious page move vandalism". You blew any assumption of good faith towards yourself somewhere around your third WP:POINT move.--Isotope23 18:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Jamdonut, unfortunately, it is difficult to assume good faith when you move as many pages as you did without prior discussions and especially when you move the article Evil to Economic Theorism.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 18:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My good faith stops when someone moves Slashdot to Digg (Website) or Hindu to Sikh (Faith). --Stephan Schulz 18:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologise
Yes I made page moves, and copied text from one article to another. I did this on numerous occasions over today, within about an hour time period. I started by trying to do it to one article and it went unnoticed for at least 10 mins, so I did it again. Then again, and again. It was like doing something you know is wrong only because you aren't getting in trouble for it. And then going further and further as far as you could. I'm sorry that I was a little more technical than you'd expect with vandalism. I don't mean to be an asshole.

Then it was noticed. And I was reprimanded. All the edits I have made have been undone, with only an hour at most exposure of the redirects or pages I created. I felt I went too far with some edits of religious prophets, and I know that those appropriate to me will likely judge me for this.

I started doing this because my housemate was pissing me off and I wanted to get him in trouble with Wikipedia because I know he edits it. I'm just going to go to hell right now.... 20:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See you there. Page protected, unblock request denied. --Golbez 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Golbez, let me remind you that a block is not punishment but is intended to protect Wikipedia. We are dealing with a registered user so he is easy to monitor. The editor has apologized and I am willing to accept it. I see no reason why we can't reduce the block to a week or two and then continue to monitor his contribs for awhile. If more vandalism is spotted, then yes, a permanent block will be warranted. Your thoughts?↔NMajdan &bull;talk 20:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I am protecting Wikipedia. I spent far more time (per article) and effort cleaning up his mess than he spent to create it; I will not allow him to screw with Wikipedia again. --Golbez 20:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

To all of the do-gooder admins who want to help this poor lost soul out
Let me explain what he did. First of all, let's ignore the previous vandalism he did, then reverting one with the edit summary "assume good faith!" Invoking AGF is becoming very similar to Godwin's Law.

Now, his recent vandalism. He moved articles - sometimes twice - and then, to really screw things up, he pasted the contents of another article over the original. So we had a situation where, say, Hindu was moved to Sikh (faith), and then the contents of Sikh were pasted onto the original Hindu redirect. This took more time than a usual move vandalism to correct because I had to find the history and make sure it was sent to the correct place.

Then he screams "assume good faith!" And you people LISTEN TO HIM? This block is 100% intended to protect Wikipedia from a blatant and repeated vandal, and all you people can do is fight over who will unblock him first and give him another chance.

I can see now why RickK left, but I assure you, I will not go quietly. --Golbez 20:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Jamdonut wasn't acting in good faith, making edits that he believed would benefit Wikipedia, he was disrupting the project in such a manner that deserves an indefinite block, it's blindingly obvious. It's also quite safe to assume from the contributions history of the account that should the block be lifted, there would be repeat policy violations by the user. -- Nick  t  20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This might be the first time I've ever been accused of coddling vandals. I should keep a link to this page so I can show it to all those poor souls I've crushed beneath my banhammer.
 * I had a couple of reasons for asking for a finite block. First, he's never been blocked before. Second, he does have a few constructive edits under his belt. Third, he's willing to talk which means we know he's aware of what he did wrong. Fourth, since it was kind of an emergency block, I just wanted to make sure he wasn't forgotten in a few days' time. Looks like that's not going to be an issue.
 * Don't worry, though - if anyone shortens the block, it won't be me. As long as it's purposeful and not just due to an oversight, I have no problem with the decision. Kafziel Talk 21:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good to know you don't usually coddle. :) As for the good edits, I dunno - maybe his account got compromised, or he was simply forming a sleeper account. The fact remains, nothing of what he did today falls remotely under "a newbie who doesn't know better". --Golbez 22:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Kafziel, jamdonut was blocked at least once before, and the user talk page history was deleted, so we can't tell how many blocks, warnings, etc. he had before that. Look at this page's history: the oldest edit is by jamdonut.  It has a block message and his comment at the bottom, "Don't know who the above user is".  So there MUST have been at least one edit before that one (or could he block himself?).  The next edit is Yamla, unblocking him, ("I like jam donuts").  She then posts again, offering to delete his user talk history.  I asked her about this today, and she said she unblocked because he said someone else had used his account (the "Don't know the above user" comment?).  She also said she didn't delete the user talk history.  But someone obviously did.  Stay strong, Golbez, your work here is appreciated far more than you may know....  Jamdonut - consider this a golden opportunity to find something better to do with your time.Fredwerner 03:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. Yesterday was the first time he was ever blocked, and the talk page has never been deleted. The history starts out with an unblock request because his IP was caught up in an autoblock of a different user, LilyLover69. Now, I'm not saying this can't possibly be a sockpuppet of that account, but there's no evidence of that in the contributions. As I said, though, I have no problem with an indefinite block. "Indefinite" is my favorite flavor, too. Kafziel Talk 12:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you protected my talk page - the only place I could possibly lay comment about what has gone on.

Read above, I apologised, and Mr Golbez, you said that if I didn't do it again, you'd unblock me. You lied, and you taunted me with your admin powers. I was willing to change, and at the same time you were never willing to. You had me marked from the start. I'm ashamed in you as an administrator of this project. I note that you have been an administrator since 2004. I guess you will never learn.

You are a bad, ruthless administrator Golbez. I trust that one day you will reap that you sow. You have had your intergrity questioned in the public eye now, and now you must have the courage of every conviction. You have a lot of responsibility here, but remember that you have twice as much to answer for.

You denied me my comments by blocking me and protecting my talk page. Are you denieing free speech? Are you promoting censorship? Maybe you are pushing your own cause. We will never know. You are an administrator on the wiki, and we must bow down to you. You can delete, and change our history and by rights, I guess we must respect you.

I offer you the best of tidings. Jamdonut 01:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I unprotected the talk page specifically to get hilarity like this. Thanks, man. --Golbez 01:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)