User talk:JamieS93/Archive 7

Thanks

 * Sorry, we might've both had concerns about the candidate, but it's not appropriate to view it as "us against him". Jamie  S93  18:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikiznanie

 * Hi, Jamie. The result of Articles for deletion/WikiZnanie was keep. Thus, the article can be deleted only after the second AfD, not by Prod. I have restored the article and added a couple of references showing notability Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for catching that. :) Jamie  S93  12:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Garry Walker
Hi JamieS93,

I accidently created the page "Garry walker" when it should have been "Garry Walker", but when looking to correct my mistake, I noticed that you had deleted a "Garry Walker" page. Not wanting to do anything wrong - your advice would be usefull.

Fair scunnered —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fair scunnered (talk • contribs) 09:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * From WP:TPS The article that was originally deleted in September was a copyright violation. The current article should be okay. I reworded several sentences that were copied and pasted from this website, so db-copyvio no longer applies. Best, Cunard (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks

Fair scunnered (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article looks good now. Thanks for the help, Cunard. :) Best, Jamie  S93  13:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Mark twain hall
Hi. I saw you speedily deleted Mark twain hall. Since I'm the one who PRODed it, it's obviously fine with me that it's gone, but I wanted to point out that CSD A7 doesn't appear to apply to buildings. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye, and it was brought to my attention when Secret declined a subsequent CSD nom (the page was automatically on my watchlist). While reading through the article, looking for notability indicators, I'm afraid I saw the "400 students" bit and sort of mentally classified it as a group. :P Thanks, Jamie  S93  23:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiBirthday
I saw from here that it's been exactly two years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 05:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! An interesting two years it's been, and I don't foresee leaving anytime soon.  Jamie  S93  19:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy birthday to YOUUUU!! Best wishes for the year(s?) to come! And on an even more important note, you finally archived your talkpage!  WordyGirl90  22:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

RfA
Many happy returns! I have thought things over and, if you are still willing to nominate me, I am prepared to give it a go. If it doesn't go well, no harm will be done and I will probably learn something, though if the message is "go and write DYKs and FAs and come back in six months" I shall just relapse into gnomery. Mentifisto and/or Tikiwont might be willing to co-nom, if you think that would be useful. I would prefer the actual throwing-to-the-lions not to start before Monday, no problem at all if it's a few days later. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

SPI archive
Hi, JamieS93. Will you please combine the old Suspected sock puppets/Creamy3 case file with the Sockpuppet investigations/Creamy3/Archive? This one popped up again yesterday (like so many do). I think it's easiest if new editors can find all the old info in one place. Thank you. — Cactus Writer |   needles  16:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't normally merge old SSP cases with SPI ones; they generally just stay separate. If there is a previous SSP case page, however, it will be automatically linked at the SPI case page (it's near the top in the archive that you linked to). Regards, Jamie  S93  18:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I had noted the link to the older report. I just had hoped to keep things in one place. I think one of my main problems is that new info on old sockppuppets tends not to be added into the archived reports. For example, the Creamy3 sock is now noted for trying to create a series a biographies and articles which is not accounted for in the archives. For those of us that know the case, those names in articles will set off the alarms. But when we are no longer editing, other editors will have to reinvent the wheel, so to speak, before they realize what they are dealing with. I guess I should file a new SSI case so that archived info is kept up-to-date. — Cactus Writer |   needles  13:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Welcoming me
Hello JamieS93! Thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia on 7 November 2009! I like how you make people "feel at home" with the new user letter also, Thanks for the

COOKIES TOO!
Man I love those cookies! *gooble! gooble! Gulp!* Thanks again for the letter!

Greatest Thanks,

Poster95

BLP
What BLP issue is then on the Harrison page?--Vintagekits (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly negative nicknames of BLPs should be approached with extreme caution, and only included if there is true consensus for it. At this point, there is not. We must be conservative when dealing with living people, so you'll have to gain consensus for that edit. Jamie  S93  21:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Where and how many times do you have to get a concensus? Does the opinion of whole Boxing Peoject count for nothing when it comes to a boxing article! Farce!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well? Where, when and how many times does concensus have to be gained? Each nickname is in common use, each nickname has multiple sources which are from reliable sources, the Boxing Project !voted 10:1 to include multiple nicknames in the infoboxes because that is common practice for boxers. So what exactly is the issue here?--Vintagekits (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The WP:BOXING discussion was about if and how many nicknames should be used in the infobox, or if a number limit is necessary. It did not cover adding multiple negative nicknames, which raises a BLP concern. Make sense? As far as I can tell, there has been no consensus about this particular issue. And when a couple of good editors question an edit with a situation does not have clear agreement, we default to applying WP:BLP and removing something that could be problematic/unfair to that living person. I also hear that the proposed change was rejected at the BLP noticeboard, so clearly there's not clear-cut agreement on your addition.
 * Have you considered coming to a compromise? Perhaps, only including only one or two of those nicknames? Regards, Jamie  S93  16:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you read further down the discussions at the WP:BOX?--Vintagekits (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Five users agreeing at a project level is simply not very strong. Indeed, it's a form of "consensus", but at this point others have clearly disagreed so there's no longer agreement. And when a BLP is involved, we should deal with it at a BLP level and take extra measures to be careful. I've opened a BLPN thread so discussion can be centralized. Please leave your comments there. Best, Jamie  S93  20:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've proposed a 1-positive/1-negative solution last month at WP:BOXING, it didn't get much feedback. However, I've proposed it again (today), with the belief that if it passes there? it just might get accepted at the BLP guideline page. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Belated thanks
... for keeping an eye on the Sultanate of Rûm article. Your help is much appreciated. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. :) Jamie  S93  22:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Day
Congratulations, JamieS93! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, 14, November 2009! Keep up the great work!-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Note: You could also recieve the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!


 * Thanks. :) Jamie  S93  00:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Charles E. Wilson
Hi Jamie, do you know what happened here? I made the move as seen here Special:Undelete/Charles_E._Wilson. Why did it have to be moved again? decltype (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've figured it out. Earlier, the article was moved from Charles E. Wilson (General Electric) → Charles E. Wilson (executive). You moved "(General Electric)" (a redirect to Wilson) to Charles E. Wilson (a redirect to GE). However, the article was still located at "(executive)", so the Wilson redirect had to be deleted a second time in order for the actual article to move to that title. Jamie  S93  15:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. I checked that the page turned up correctly at Charles E. Wilson, but I didn't notice that it was still a redirect. Thanks for fixing it! decltype (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad to help. Jamie  S93  15:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you be willing to review?
I have requested rollback rights. Would you be willing to review as an Admin? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ambush (The Clone Wars Episode)
What do you mean "declined, not applicable" there is nearly nothing on that page. Everything on that page is in the main episode list. Is has no actual content to speak of.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 16:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You may wish to review WP:CSD. Similar to A1, it only applies to articles that literally do not have any context or content beyond an external link, rephrasing the article title, etc. The "Ambush" article gives proper context ("was the first episode of the show"), and a bit of detail ("was aired on X date"), so it simply does not qualify for speedy deletion. It's a stub, but has sufficient content for inclusion. Regards, Jamie  S93  18:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: RfA question
I have replied on my talk page. Cheers, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 02:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Disney character categories
Hi, Jamie. A few days ago, you deleted several subcategories of Category:Disney characters because they were empty. There may have been more that someone else got to before you did, I'm not sure. These categories were only empty because removed them from all of their articles, without explanation. I asked him twice for an explanation but received no response even though he continues to edit. I don't think he should be able to essentially have these categories deleted without discussion, but that seems to be what has happened. I would ask you to restore the categories, but that leaves the problem of repopulating them, which I can't figure out how to do without going through each of Lord Opeth's edits over the past few weeks. Do you have any suggestions? Powers T 12:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've left a note at Lord Opeth's talkpage. If s/he doesn't reply after some time (while continuing to edit), I will restore and repopulate the categories (except for this category, which the user created, so it could fall under G7). It looks like the categories were emptied outside of process, but there might be a good reason, so I've asked. Best, Jamie  S93  00:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible SPI?
Jamie, I am concerned that User:Falsehoods_Aplenty is a sock of Sockpuppet_investigations/The_Wurdalak but I am not sure how to reopen the case. My concerns are due to similar editting styles in Oath_Keepers. Could you please advise me? I'd appreciate if you'd let me take the neccessary steps myself so I can learn, I just can't find which steps to take.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC) I decided to WP:BEBOLD and take a chance on reporting the user as best I could and then realized that the user was already blocked, they just were not documented. Could you now help me clean up my mess at Sockpuppet_investigations/The_Wurdalak? Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and just removed the new section that you had created; normally we leave things documented the way they were, but since the block occured before your SPI listing, it probably isn't necessary to keep. I simply made note of Falsehoods in the main case, at the bottom. Best, Jamie  S93  18:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--TParis00ap (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Your clarification
Yeah, I was being facetious when I said I couldn't imagine what was being referred to. I'm familiar with that case, and in fact address it in some detail elsewhere in my answers. Thanks for offering context, though. Cheers, Steve Smith (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I try to keep mine subtle enough that even I miss it from time to time. Steve Smith (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Switchfoot
I believe we have arrived at an agreement. You may un-protect the article now, unless any other things still need to be addressed. Joberooni (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. It's unprotected now. Best, Jamie  S93  00:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

RfA stats
Thanks for adding that. I tried to generate some text-based editing stats with the link from the RfA nomination instructions, but it gave me a 403 Forbidden error, so I gave up. Anyhow, the talk page redlink was bugging me, so thanks for fixing it. :) MastCell Talk 20:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) Jamie  S93  22:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

RFPP
As you are already familiar with the case of Playback singer, an article you recently semiprotected (which has since been unprotected), I thought I'd come to you. The anon keeps doing the same kind of edits. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  14:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and reprotected for 5 days. I looked into a rangeblock, and since the range is broad, I'm not sure it's a good idea. I'll contact somebody who might have a better knowledge of that. Jamie  S93  17:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey again - same edits again. I think a longer protection is necessary here. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  00:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The edits are not excessive and it's not vandalism, but more like mild edit warring to re-add unsourced material, so I don't feel comfortable re-protecting it again. If the user continues repeatedly, bring it to RFPP again, or perhaps ANI, to seek input from other admins. It's not an easy situation, but since the edits aren't blatant or real persistent, it probably doesn't warrant protection. I'm not a fan of open editing, so my personal tendency is to be heavier-handed than others. So I don't want to be the only admin involved, and would rather leave the subsequent decision(s) to somebody else. Best, Jamie  S93  15:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As you can see now - he keeps doing the same. I can also assure you they are incorrect. He uses multiple accounts, violates WP:EW, WP:CITE, and it saddens me quite a bit because I was the one to thoroughly source the article only to find that incorrect information is added and I am sort of helpless here. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  23:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

He did allow it.
Take a look at his talk page. ☭  Pick both man lol  ☭ 22:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the instructions at WP:RFA/N, Zink needs to sign the "accept nomination" section near the top of the page, to verify that he accepts that nom you wrote, before the RfA is transcluded and started. Besides, the candidate has not answered the 3 questions yet, and it's recommended that those are filled out transcluding an RfA. Best, Jamie  S93  23:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jamie
I nearly killed a great potential article.Joseane (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. Jamie  S93  23:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

AFD and religious organizations
Since when does A7 not apply to religious organizations? Tb (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. For starters, I'm not a CSD stickler and don't favor getting caught up in the details of each criterion. Instead, I try to look at the big picture. The issues I saw with on-sight deleting Jeffersonian Christianity were:  a) the author had provided a source to the origin of the denomination (it wasn't mostly nonexistent or clearly small, but instead a historical figure), and at the talk page s/he claimed that it was a "genuine denomination of Christianity". I would rather honor that request, a claim of notability and author attempting to proving significance via sources, rather than just make a personal  b) There is a difference between a definitive organization or group of people, and a denomination or subset of beliefs among certain people. It's not so easy to ascertain the widespreadness of a religious denom that may be less clearly defined, unless you look into the topic and investigate for sources. Speedy deletion is not meant for less clearly defined subjects. Now, if the article implied that a pseudo-denomination was recently created by some random person, with basically no results in a Google search, that's more obvious and I'd be willing to delete. Given the nature of this topic, tho, that's not really the case here. I'd be interested if you wanted to start a discussion at WT:CSD about speedy deletion of religious denomination/beliefs articles, in case I'm wrong with my gut feel here. Best,  Jamie  S93  21:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is about the set of beliefs, then A7 wouldn't apply, because it would be about a set of beliefs. But a denomination is not a set of beliefs, it's an organization.  Of course, speedy deletion is always a judgment call, and I don't object to that.  However, this is a case of a completely non-existent organization, and a page created by a brand-new account.  If anything, I suspect school-project-ism, as has happened before.  I guess we'll wait for the author to fail to provide any references showing the existence of this organization, let alone anything approaching notability, and the more time-intensive AfD process.  Tb (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Re decline of CSD
Heya Jamie,

You said that a request was needed for a user space page to be deleted. I requested deletion in response to this request by the user. However, I am not going to request deletion for all of their articles, because I was told that they could not request deletion unless they were the only contributor to the article in question. Thanks, Tim1357 (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's gone now. :) I could delete their talkpage under the RTV clause, since s/he appears to be leaving the account. However, since Milance may still be in communication with you, I've left it there. As for articles, I usually grant deletion requests if the author is the only major contributor to the article. If a couple of bots or users make small changes, such as typos, some wikifying, or adding a maintenance tag, that doesn't really count as "contributing" to the article, and it's still primarily the author's piece of work. The other edits to Nenad Bekvalac were nothing noteworthy, so I've also deleted that page per the author's earlier page-blank. Best, Jamie  S93  13:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I made a bit of a little mistake
I have re-undeleted User:DuncanHill/Cornwall type localities. The original author made the request at my talkpage, so I did it... What I didn't do, though, was to not undelete the last edit, which was a delete request... Um... So, you came along and deleted it... and I have undeleted it for the second time today. It is a good thing for me that RfA's don't come with an intelligence test! LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, sure. No worries! :) Jamie  S93  16:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Of "Microwave This" page... ?
Okay, so you had the "Is It A Good Idea To Microwave This?" page deleted on grounds that "G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page."... I'm going to have to call bullshit there, actually. The only thing that was in dispute on this article was it's lack of multiple sources of verifiable notability... which is NOT in-and-of-itself grounds for a speedy deletion. Care to explain your reasoning here, and why the page was deleted... because maybe I am misunderstanding something here. --Jonny Paula (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * From WP:TPS Jamie deleted Is it a good idea to microwave this because it was a broken redirect to Is It a Good Idea to Microwave This?, which was deleted per Articles for deletion/Is it a good idea to microwave this. Cunard (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. NuclearWarfare closed the Articles for deletion/Is it a good idea to microwave this discussion as "delete" based on the consensus. There was a broken redirect to the deleted page that needed to be removed, so I was just cleaning up. WP:CSD explains this in more detail. Best, Jamie  S93  13:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It got too hot, and needed to cool off in our deleted archive. It's never a good idea to microwave a Wikipedia article, just fyi... Peter Symonds ( talk ) 13:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * K, thanks for the right link - I guess I was looking at the re-direct page rather than the actual one, thanks for the heads-up. --Jonny Paula (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks very much for protecting my page. :) Tom A8  UDI  02:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) Jamie  S93  02:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP
Hi Jamie - thanks for the comment on my talk page. I just wanted to follow up to make sure you didn't think I was ignoring your questions about my views on BLP. If there are any specific questions you can point me to, or any specific RFAs to look at I'd be happy to share my views (although as you can probably guess I can't promise that they will be brief). Regards, 7  11:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay - not on much this weekend.  I've replied on my talk page.  Your candid comments are welcome.  Thanks.   7  00:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Thanks for resolving that. There is an SPI out on the person so he's naturally upset. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for closing that SPI and ending the drama. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Question
Why did you delete my sub page User talk:IShadowed/permissions? I was doing a lesson for User:Steven Zhang entitled 'permissions' and another user accused me of 'cheating' somehow. What's going on here?  IShadowed  ✰  23:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Aditya posted a few comments on that talk page, pointing out how some of the answers were inaccurate. S/he decided it would be "cheating" to tell you the answers, I guess, and then removed their comments and requested deletion. I can restore the page if you'd like. Best, Jamie  S93  23:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The entire point of the assignment was to do the best one can on the questions, I'm bound to get answers wrong.  IShadowed  ✰  23:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Like I said, I can undelete it, because it's not a big deal either way as I see it, since you already answered the questions. :) Jamie  S93  23:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought the page itself had been deleted, I didn't see it was just the talk page. Sorry for the misunderstanding,  IShadowed  ✰  18:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, no problem at all. :) Jamie  S93  19:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam


David Shankbone AFD?
Re: Requests for adminship/Dylan620

Why not just waterboard the poor guy, torture would be less painful than deciphering that AFD. :) Wading through that is one of the few tasks on the wiki that is more painful than your own RFA. Seriously though, that question, or one like it, should be part of a "pre-RFA" checklist that has a list of self-evaluation questions for candidates to think about before accepting a nomination. If an editor knows what he's getting into, it will deter those who aren't ready and mentally prepare those who are for the challenges of the job. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
For withdrawing my RfA at my request. I think I'll take a break for the rest of the day, then see if I can get back into admin coaching under my original coach tomorrow. Cheers,  Dylan 620  (contribs, logs, review) 14:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, and I wish you the best of luck. :) Jamie  S93  14:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 00:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Essentially an erroneous report. An IP removed the cover image and some other info (back in October) for no reason, and the edit was never caught. Jamie  S93  13:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Slip-n-Slide Records
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Slip-n-Slide Records. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 Dramaout?
(See WT:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout) -- _ _ _ A. di M. 12:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 21:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Institute of Bankers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ifs_School_of_Finance Hi Jamie I have recently uploaded some new content onto our page as the old content was incorrect and no longer valid.I have just seen that the content has been reverted back to its original because it was deemed to be promotional material and like an advert. I work for the company and we took every effort to ensure that anything uploaded and written was accurate. Would you be able to let me know what parts did not fit with the wikipedia guidelines and how I can amend this.

Thank you Harriet Hredge (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Harriet. First off, you said you work for the company - it's worth noting that editing with a conflict of interest is generally discouraged. It's okay if you want make the information accurate, but since we're an encyclopedia, there are some firm neutrality standards. Articles must be written from a "neutral point-of-view" in an encyclopedic tone instead of sounding promotional about the subject. That's why I removed some of the article content; it sounded more like an advert about the services offered instead of an encyclopedia resource. You may wish to read WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:PROMO for more info. Jamie  S93  17:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jamie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ifs_School_of_Finance This page for the ifs School of Finance still has the page title Institute of Bankers, which was our company name many years ago, I cannot change the page title because I do not have the ability to change the title - would you be able to advise me how I can go about changing the page title so instead of Institute of Bankers the page is called ifs School of Finance Thank you Harriet Dredge Hredge (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * From TPS: I have moved the article to the correct title, which only autoconfirmed users can do. Autoconfirmed users are those who have made 10 or more edits and have accounts that are four day or older. Harriet, the message you placed on Jamie's talk page was your tenth edit, so you can move pages now. The move button is next to the "edit this page" button that is at the top of each article. Best, Cunard (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for changing that, is there any chance that you can make the title read ifs School of Finance, so the ifs is in bold and italics and School of Finance is in italics. I tried to do this myself but I couldn't see where you said the move button was? Thank you, Harriet 212.219.98.130 (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't think that kind of formatting in a page title is technically possible. Jamie  S93  21:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry, thank you anyway. Harriet Hredge (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Shubinator RfA
Hey Jamie, I started the Shubinator RfA page at Requests for adminship/Shubinator; sorry it took longer than I originally said! Anyway, you can add your nom statement whenever you're ready, and once that's done and he's done questions 1-3 we can get things started. Best, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 17:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll pop in with a co-nom soon. Jamie  S93  17:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been transcluded by Coffee. Shubinator (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And untranscluded by me. Shubinator (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. :) You folks move fast - I was out doing an errand, and come back to find it transcluded! Typing a co-nom as we speak. Jamie  S93  19:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Feel free to transclude when you're ready. I'm going to get something to eat before tackling the rest of the questions. Shubinator (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
  Click there to open your card! → → → Dear , Wishing you, your family, and friends a very merry Christmas (or whatever you celebrate at this time of year), and I hope that the new year will be a good one, in real life, and on the wiki. There is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit; it's a special time of year of almost everyone. ;) Love and best wishes,  Meaghan  - Merry Christmas!  - 00:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanx! A very merry Christmas to you, too!! :-) Jamie  S93  01:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax  06:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!
  

 Set Sail  For The   Seven Seas    351° 19' 45" NET    23:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanx! A very merry Christmas to you, too!! :-) Jamie  S93  01:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hola :)
Español: Hola amigo wikipedista podrias mejorar el articulo Deysi Cori (This appears to be English Wikipedia's first article created in the year 2010). Saludos, cordialmente Globalphilosophy (talk)  00:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA Thanks
  My RFA →→→ <div style=" border: outset 1px DarkGray; background-color: DarkGray; padding: 2px 2px 2px 2px; "> <div style=" border: outset 1px DimGray; background-color: DimGray; padding: 2px 2px 2px 2px; "> <div style=" border: inset 2px white; background-color: #f5f5f5; padding: 10px; color: black; "> Dear JamieS93, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind vote on my request for adminship which failed with a final result of (40/19/12).

Thank you for your participation in my RfA which I withdrew after concerns of my knowledge of policy. Special thanks are owed to Coffee, who defended me throughout and whom I cannot thank enough for the nomination; to 2over0 for being supportive and helpful; to A Stop at Willoughby for the thorough, thoughtful and articulate support rationale; to IP69.226.103.13 for maintaining composure and for a pleasant interaction on my talk page and, last but not least, to Juliancolton who was good enough to close the RfA at my request and, frankly, because an editor whom I respect so much found the time to support me! If the need for more admins at the main page is still apparent in a few months, I may try again. Thank you all for a relatively drama-free RfA and for providing me with much material from which to learn from my mistakes. You're all welcome to drop by my talk page any time. God save the Queen Wiki! HJMitchell   You rang?   19:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnegat Fund Management
There are oodles of news stories on these guys now. You might want to re-consider the reinstatement of its previously deleted article. Lighten up Francis! 21:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djbarnes (talk • contribs)
 * I deleted the article based on the consensus at Articles for deletion/Barnegat Fund Management. To overturn this decision and recreate the article, you can bring this to WP:DRV (Deletion Review). But before opening a discussion there, I highly recommend that you begin a draft article in your userspace. As a subpage of your user page, i.e., User:Djbarnes/Barnegat Fund Management. You'll need to prove notability, so please be sure to include extra reliable sources such as the news articles you mentioned. Also, if you want, I can move a copy of the deleted article to your userspace so you can work on it. Regards, Jamie  S93  21:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be nice if you moved the copy of the deleted article to my userspace so I can work on it. And here is some of the recent press on them:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704240504574586180545236304.html

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/small_fund_big_Mx0CteaUi94eN4doGCQr9H

http://www.hedgetracker.com/article/Bob-Treues-Barnegat-Fund-up-132

http://www.finalternatives.com/node/10106

http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-treue-hedge-fund-2010-1

http://www.fins.com/Finance/Articles/SB126261817505914945/N-J-Hedge-Fund-Is-2009-Top-Performer

http://www.hedgefund.net/publicnews/default.aspx?story=10757

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100108005054&newsLang=en

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703535104574646710848896566.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://www.businessinsider.com/hedge-funders-brush-off-carried-tax-2010-1

Lighten up Francis! 22:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djbarnes (talk • contribs)
 * ✅, I've saved you a copy of the article here. Thank you for the list of sources! I added them to the bottom of the "userfied" page. Now would be an alright time for you to list this article at Deletion Review (DRV). I can't promise that other editors will agree that the subject is notable enough, but it's worth posting there. Regards,  Jamie  S93  14:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

RE:Deysi Cori
Muchas gracias por mencionarme sobre el primer articulo del año 2010: WP:AN#First article of 2010. Saludos Globalphilosophy (talk)  17:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * De nada. :) Jamie  S93  17:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Dear JamieS93,

Ah, ok to know regarding that speedy tag. To be honest, I was looking at previous empty cats that were to be deleted by clicking "edit" and spotted the c1 criteria. Thought that was the standard way to speedy delete 'em, so I've been using that one. Will now change my empty category speedies accordingly. Thanks once more! Alvin Seville (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha. XD Jamie  S93  23:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Temple Israel (Dayton, Ohio)
Thank you for letting me know. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, keep up the good work. :-) Jamie  S93  02:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Revolver moves
Hi Jamie, I was wondering if there was a prior discussion about moving Revolver (album) to Revolver (The Beatles album). ~DC Talk To Me 16:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please move it back. Revolver by The Beatles is clearly the primary topic for that article name. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there wasn't any discussion - it was one user's G6 request, asking for full disambiguation in the title. Since there's a total of 4 albums of the name Revolver, I believe that it's probably in line with typical conventions to switch it to "(The Beatles)". It could be argued that it's the primary topic, though. I would be glad to start an RM discussion. Jamie  S93  16:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Jamie  S93  16:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Jamie  S93  16:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I found this discussion. Jamie  S93  16:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and as you can see, my moving and poetic comment at the end won the day! (Joking, of course!) I don't think that thread led to a consensus, but I think it's clear that multiple editors supported the notion that WP users who type "Revolver (album)" should go to the primary topic for that specific phrase. The other side seemed to propose that any parenthesized phrase after the initial text should be ignored, but that doesn't make sense to me: while many readers will not be familiar with WP rules, we shouldn't penalize those who are. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are both good points - and thanks for keeping me on track. ;-) It seems that a couple of times I've run into issues when handling G6 move requests; heh, then I should probably back away from those a bit. Cheers! Jamie  S93  14:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

RazielZero (rollback rights)
Hello,

RazielZero, who claims to be a 16-year-old child living in Hungary, recently, rather carelessly, rolledback over ten good-faith edits of mine. I have since reverted and posted a polite explanantion to this person's talk page accordingly. Keep an eye on this one.

67.52.190.252 (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just heard from RazielZero. This person apologized and admitted the rollbacks were a mistake.

67.52.190.252 (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you two worked it out. Take care, Jamie  S93  00:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token e61314184b52f53ae21f96911748ee0b
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

10:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA/2
Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! -- Jayron  32  01:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks - I probably would have forgotten. Jamie  S93  02:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll
You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.

It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).

As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!

Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion or not?
Hi there. In your summary for closing the Graphical interface of future operating system article, you've written that "The result was delete. Since it's so clearly WP:NOT, with zero chance, we should have been able to speedy that". Incidentally, we were able to speedy that article, and I had already, on the same day the article was created on 16 January 2010, placed a CSD tag on that page. An admin declined the speedy deletion, and suggested I take it to Afd, which I did. My question is this: who is right in this issue, the admin who declined the speedy deletion, or you, the admin who confirmed that this article should have been speedily deleted? Amsaim (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Interesting that you brought that up. :-) I can't say it's a matter of "right or wrong" so much as application of discretion. Fabrictramp probably did fine, if you want to strictly follow the CSD criteria. However, IMO our CSD system has become overly bureaucratic at times. And when deciding whether or not to on-sight delete something, we shouldn't be worrying about petty stuff like "G2 vs G3, but not quite A3", but instead looking at the bigger picture. I often write custon deletion summaries, because it can give a better explanation than one of the templated reasons.
 * I think A7 could be overused in deletions, but on the other hand, I've seen articles like "my top 10 favorite list of bands" or "something my friend made up yesterday" that were PRODded instead of speedy deleted, which I disagree with. We should be able to speedy things like that. In the closure statement, I was speaking in a semi-theoretical sense. Like I said, nothing wrong with Fabrictramp's decision, but it's my personal opinion that we should delete articles that are clearly not encyclopedic (WP:NOT, etc.) and would be snow cases at AFD (besides stuff like WP:CRYSTAL - that should not be within a single admin's scope, and requires a discussion). Otherwise, it wastes people's time to vote "delete" on irredeemable articles. Best,  Jamie  S93  19:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Templates to delete
Hi. You deleted but then restored Template:Superleague Formula races. I would ask you to redelete it as the point was that it has merged with another template so the information is already there. It wasn't a mistake putting it up for deletion. There is another one, Template:Superleague Formula which follows the same story line by which the information has been moved in an appropriate way so as to leave the template defunct of any use. I would appreciate the deletion of both. Thanks. Officially Mr X (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By "mistake" I meant that the deletion was my mistake. :-) I was attempting to delete several templates (all tagged for deletion by another user, for a different reason), and I accidentally deleted the SF races template, too, before even looking into the situation. Just a pure mistake on my part. I just deleted both for you under WP:CSD ("housekeeping, cleanup") since it doesn't look like "T2" was the CSD reason you were looking for. Best, Jamie  S93  22:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I probably shouldn't make requests here but nobody is sorting out any deletions at the moment and these three templates just need deleting as they are devoid of use: Template:China Superbike Championship Circuit, Template:GP3 Seasons, Template:Formula V6 Asia Series circuits. Thanks. Officially Mr X (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like one of my colleagues just deleted them. :-) Jamie  S93  13:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * o: Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 13:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)