User talk:Ohnoitsjamie/archive10

Roadsters Link...
Jamie,

The other links on these sites, for places like SLKWorld and Benzworld are for web sites that display paid advertisements and also have paid subscriptions. MBRoadsters.com is a FREE site with no subscriptions given for forums and information for Mercedes-Benz Roadsters. It is also a site that meets Mercedes-Benz requirements as being a helpful site to their product's owners.

This site is a community for those cars, and not a money making venture. It is ramping up with many articles of how to fix things, and about the history. Why would it not belong in there, and money making sites that Mercedes-Benz does NOT appove of, especially ones using thier trademarks to make money, be allowed in?

So, Jamie, why haven't you removed the links for the CLEARLY MONEY MAKING SITES? Did you not even check the sites to see what they are for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RacerCub68 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It has a store. Do stores not make money? If you feel there are other links in articles that violate WP:EL, please feel free to remove them. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

HAve a store...
So do the other sites.

But as far as making money, it does not.


 * 1) 1. The store is currently closed pending final approval by Mercedes Benz.


 * 1) 2  The store will be selling Polo shirts with the Roadsters logo and other logos approved by Mercedes Benz.  These logos will be sewn on by a seniors group in Texas with the money from the shirts going to pay their material costs and any extra going as a donation for their not-for-profit senior education center.

However, the other links for profit stores are up and running. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RacerCub68 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said before, feel free to remove other links that you feel violate WP:EL policies. Per WP:COI, Wikipedia is not the place to promote your new website. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

UFFFF
You are so annoying. Every page has an External LINK and my external links are VALID !!!... Why do you keep removing them. My website is a genuine site.. please go check it out... it has ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING about afghans, afghan culture, afghan history, afghan music, afghan videos, afghan TV, afghan EVERYTHING. And in each appropriate section..i have placed EXTERNAL LINK. But nOoOooOo JAMIE has to come and remove it. Man...u suck :-( ... afghanbuzz.com is starting to hate u... no treats for u :-(  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mqrasi (talk • contribs) 11:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you add the link again, or continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked from editing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Personal Attack???.. Aight you are way too sensitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mqrasi (talk • contribs) 22:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Michelle Merkin POTD
In view of your many contributions to the Beauty article that includes Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg, you may wish to participate in the discussion on Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg at the admin noticeboard since listing the image on the Main Page may bring more traffic to the Beauty article. -- Jreferee    t / c  21:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away!


hopes that you are joyful! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the Wikilove by melting the clouds of sin and sadness that weigh down someone else. Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Marlith  T / C  03:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Encouragement and reminder on using Minor Edit Box
Thanks for your encouragement, Jamie, and I will try to remember.--Parkwells 02:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

On Unit Trust, ETF, Mutual Fund Family
I don't have time to check whether you removed all of the links I added last night. These are useful links for other people to continue refining the articles. They are real time reflections of the issues under discussion (while wikipedia article is static). On one hand, you have a flag citing no reference to these important topics. On the other hand, you don't let me add useful references. Not sure what you stand for. Stevelihn 7 November 2007
 * Yes, I did remove all of them. Your commercial site does not qualify as a reliable source. Wikipedia is not for advertising. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

United_States_Permanent_Resident_Card
Hello! Please elaborate on how these external links "violate" WP:EL. I have contributed to this article and feel stronlgy that links in question are beneficial to the readers and provide additional details to this very ambigious immigration topic. Also, would you agree to revert your edit for the duration of this discussion with a follow-up upon its conclusion? Please answer here. Maksdo 16:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The links either have heavy advertising or are otherwise commercial sites (laywers, etc.) Wikipedia is not a link directory. I've moved the discussion here. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Are you overreacting? I am sorry but none of the links has any "heavy advertising" and only one is a commercial lawyer website Kolken & Kolken (which goes into great lengths to explain immigration concept and does not push any of their services onto a user). Are you just scratching the surface in your "link validity" judgement? Immihelp.com might seem to have some ads in the right pane but any "negative impact" on the reader is not material in comparison to all immigration information resourses this website has to offer. WP:EL is a recomendation, and doesn't restrict per se any links, even if for some editors they qualify as purely commercial or "with heavy advertisement". Policy should be applied with common sense. Reasonable number of external links that are legit, known, reputable and recognized by the immigration community is absolutely necessary to accompany this arrticle. Yes, Wikipedia is not a link directory but again, we are talking about only 8 links, not a hundred or thousand. I will appreciate your comments and hope you revise your position. Maksdo 18:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I will not revise my position. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, first and foremost. As such, it could use more content, not links. If someone wants to find immigration info, any search engine can provide that information. If you want curated links, Dmoz is the place for that.  As far as using "common sense," I did leave a few links, even though they all violate WP:EL.
 * Yes, it is encyclopedia, but "internet encyclopedia" I must emphasize. It DOES need external links. More content? Well, lets wait for more content and then purge some external links. One is replacing the other, natural flow. The article as it is today lost some of its informational value after your purge.
 * ...And what happened with your original claim about "...links either have heavy advertising or are otherwise commercial sites"? I thought I proved it wrong. Thank you. Maksdo 18:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Proved me wrong how? All of the links I removed had ads on them except the lawyer site, which is obviously commercial. I have an ad-blocker plugin that lists them for each site. PathtoUSA only had on ad link, but it has a "shopping" section.  And where does it say that "An article needs links"?  Articles need references from WP:Reliable sources, but not links. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure I did: WP:EL, #6 says: "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising". Not a case with any of these links. One or two unobtrusive banners. Not material. Shopping section? Have you ever followed that link? Innocent. Not material. One site is commercial. As long as it contibutes to further expand atricle's subject and educate the reader, let it be. Not material.
 * Yes, articles do need links. Remember, Wikipedia is a function of internet. I think of "External links" as "Further reading" section. Maksdo 19:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously, official links are fine (and the article in question has plenty of those). Can you find a policy that says articles require links? (Non-citation links)?OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no policy. Why do you need a policy for something like this? Everything is much more easier. You include links when you believe in good faith they are useful, you don't include any links if there is no need for them. I am not sure why official links are fine. Actually, it is all the way around. In this example, non-government links carry much more knowledge, detailed information and are more accurate and up-to-date than government links. What policy? I think it is clearly stated that Wikipedia is a common effort and NOTHING is set in stone and one has to use common sense over ANY guideline (real name for WP:EL) or authority or policy. Because we all make mistakes and everything under this Moon changes. Maksdo 19:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Crunk Energy Drink
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Crunk Energy Drink, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Crunk Energy Drink is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Crunk Energy Drink, please affix the template   to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 11:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of "Something Awful"
Please explain why you reverted the edits to Something_Awful. The information I added should be present on the page, and it was discussed in the Something Awful "talk" page. 192.31.106.35 16:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure, actually...it was late, and I was tired. I reverted it back. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks! 192.31.106.35 18:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Question to OhNoits Jamie
Recently i put my site (afghanbuzz.com) in afghan related pages. My site has lots of stuff about afghans and afghanistan. And you removed me and warned me. Okay. Now, if you look at those pages, sites such as virtualafghans.com or eafghans.com are all linked. Absolutely anything afghan related have a virtualafghan link to it. Now Why and Who chooses what sites to have here. And Why such bias. Is it based on your mood? Is it based on how you feel? Or there are some set rules?. Please visit my site and their site. There is nothing that my site lacks then their site. Its as informative (INFACT MORE) as them.

They placed all links in each and every afghan section. So did I. Yet you and some other newbie mod only noticed my links?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.242.47 (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to remove other links that do not meet WP:EL guidelines. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
  Click there to open your card! → → → Dearest Jamie, Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words of strong support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow  and  Phoenix-wiki  for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.  Lara  ❤  Love  20:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by  The Random Editor 's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel 's RFA thanks.

October 2007
Please do not delete sourced content from articles, as you did to Chisso in this edit The content you deleted is supported by the existing references and does not qualify as "random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information" that can be instantly deleted. Your edit has been reverted. Please consider using   to tag content that may require an inline citation to meet WP:V. This gives other editors a chance to provide inline citations. I will be adding additional inline citations to Chisso. Feel free to discuss this on Talk:Chisso or here (I will watch your talk page). Thank you. - Neparis 15:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand by my edit. I saw no citations supporting the claim. It's important for potentially controversial claims to be sourced. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree it is important for controversial or potentially controversial material to be sourced. At the time of your deletion, the article already had references both to Kaplan(2003) and to George(2001) with an inline citation (in the paragraph just before the two that you deleted) explicitly confirming the claims, such as the threatening activities of yakuza that were invited by the company. None of the claims are disputed by any WP:RS, and the claims were completely verifiable by these two references and the WP:EL to the corporation's website containing their 2004 accounts and their "historical overview". Do you have any references that dispute any of the facts stated in the article? - Neparis 16:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing the material anymore. I checked out the references, and found a few others.  The only discrepancy I saw was that some sources say it was Chisso factory workers, not yakuza, but that distinction may not be important in the larger context. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

OH NO NOT THAT YOU FUCKING RETARD
banned from editing wikipedia.. oh my the horror.. how can such a thing happen.. what shall I possibly do.. maybe step outside into the fresh air like you should once in awhile you dumb ass think Im cool cause Im a pussy administrator that works for free moron. Go fuck your self pussy.. I have about 1000 other IP addresses and automated software to boot.. you want to play..tempt me bitch. You can erase all day.. i'll be at the beach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.46.31 (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 999 IPs to go. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And what's to say we're not at the beach? Wi-Fi access at the Ritz-Carlton Key Biscayne extends all the way down to the water's edge. And if you put up the little flag beside your cabana, they'll bring you a mojito to sip while you're using your notebook to block trolls. (Yes, I'm a geek, but I'm a geek with class.) — Satori Son 16:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Jamie's response to the guy rates as one of the funniest things I've seen all week. Enigma (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

my rfa
  If you voted in my RFA... ...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations. Thank you again and, best regards. Van Tucky  Talk  This RFA thanks was inspired by Lara ❤ Love's 

IndexUniverse.com
Hi Jamie,

I would like to know why you deleted a link to IndexUniverse.com's ETF Data Screener on the 12th of November. The ETF Data Screener is the most comprehensive, free and open ETF performance data tool available anywhere on the Internet. Professional and sophisticated retail investors use it to screen for and compare ETFs, Index Funds and their underlying Indexes.

Is there a policy that only corporate owned portals like Money.com or Yahoo.com can be linked to in the External Links?

Thanks,

Fernando —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friveraz (talk • contribs) 15:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yahoo! and Money are notable. Also see WP:COI. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why???
You said i was editing wrongly when i wasn't so i want an opology u silly cunt you can f**k off for all i care get a life dick head —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabba Natalie (talk • contribs) 16:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what an opology is. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's the opposite of an apology, which the above obviously is... :-) — Satori Son 17:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite an apposite comment... --David Broadfoot (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Muchas gracias amigo
Wow, thanks. Yes, I have been throwing myself back into contributing. But it's only because all of the really great encouragement I've gotten from everyone after the RFA. Thank you again, if you need anything you know where to find me. Van Tucky  Talk 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

JEEZ...
WHY ARE YOU ALWAYS SO HAPPY???? EVEN IF SOMEONE TELLS YOU TO **** OFF YOU GIVE THEM A SMILE!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by O smart one (talk • contribs) 01:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
... for your help on the Bitch article. Rock on! IttyBittyGrittyindaShteCiti 02:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Crocs
Why was the Crocs page protected? "During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute." That's not an accusation, I just want to understand. SouperAwesome 04:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleting unsourced material has nothing to do with an edit war. A humor site claiming they affected a stock price does not constitute a reliable source. The numerous other sources cited (Forbes, Motley Fool, etc), all make it clear that the price change was related to the financial of the company. The page was protected for the same reason that a page might be protected if Colbert made a comment on his show that "everyone should change X article."
 * You know, you can change stock prices yourself. Here's how: (1) Create a blog (2) a day or two before a particular company is due to release an earnings announcement or guidance, say something really bad about the company in your blog (3) there's always a chance that the earnings announcement will be negative and the price will tank. If it does, claim that you caused it. (4) Make a graph, because graphs prove things. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering, but... was all that necessary? I didn't say anything about the sources or content or anything. I just noticed you reverted a few edits and then protected the page. I'm still learning about Wikipedia and my adopter has gone AWOL, so I was just curious. I'm glad you at least answered, but I didn't need all the extra sharpness. After reading up on everything I agree with you about the article, so it was really unnecessary. SouperAwesome 15:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't intend to be "extra sharp." Just trying to make my actions clear. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

G18 Page
I received this message: "However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and 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". I am unsure why. I edited the page to correct non-factual information. Could you let me know how this is NOT improving the owrk of others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.8.189 (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The warning was in regard to this edit. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh... I see.  That wasnt me!  I have only had this internet connection for a few months.  I went and read up on this and registered to avoid this kind of confusion in the future.  Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canopy2k (talk • contribs) 22:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Howdy Ohnoitsjamie, thanks for participating in my request for adminship. I am happy to say it was successful, 55/0/0, and I am looking forward to getting to work. Thanks for your vote of confidence. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come. Suggestions and advice are always appreciated.

--TeaDrinker 05:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts
Thanks Jamie for ensuring that the wikipedia stays free of spam and any commercial promotions. I edited one of the pages on Network Marketing and provided an external link that points to a web-site which has information on how the industry works in general. But I own that site and I can see how it can be a conflict of interest for the wikipedia. However, I would like to point out that there are some external links that do point out to resources like a personally run web-site that promote negative information about the industry. The entire page on Network Marketing (MLM) seems like fear-mongering content page and hence I wanted to post some credible information on the entire industry. At my site, I am not promoting any company's compensation plan or product. The primary information source on the website are links to 2 movies that put the industry in the right perspective. What I would like to do is post links to the movies directly, rather than my personal website. Would that be all-right with the policies and can I be certain that the movie link will not be deleted. On clicking the link, users will be directly led to a 20 minute flash presentation that explains the network marketing industry as taught by Tim Sales and Dr. Charles King, who holds a Ph.D in business administration from Harvard school of business and teaches Network Marketing as a part of the MBA curriculum at University of Chicago at Illinois. There is no company promotion nor any compensation plan that it touches upon, just explains what are the components involved in Network Marketing as an industry and how they run. Waiting for you reply.--User_talk:Vishalhkd
 * I'd personally lean toward "no," but you're welcome suggest the direct links on the talk page for that article. I'll respect whatever consensus results from that. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your consideration. I would be glad if you can go to the my website [] and view the presentation "Brilliant Compensation" and check out the presentation about the Network Marketing Industry. Once you have gone through it, you can let me know if a direct link to the presentation (and not to my website) would be useful to the users of wikipedia in exploring the industry. My intention is to help people with their research on any opportunity that they would like to evaluate. Thanks.Talk

Pee Wee Herman
Hi. I am trying to put together a checkuser request in relation to the "Pee Wee Herman" vandal, with a view to getting the underlying IPs blocked (I have range blocked some IPs used by the vandal(s) with limited success). I am putting together a list of sockpuppets and their edits here. As I see that you have been involved in dealing with this vandalism, I am letting you know and please feel free to contribute to the list. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks Marlith, I think I will raise a glass! OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Flash question
Hello, I have a question for you: is it deemed acceptable to have an external link to a site that uses Flash? Case and point... Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano. Ferrari uses Flash, and there is no way to link exactly to the 599 part on their site. I was going to remove some of the unnecessary links, replacing them with a link to Ferrari. I really appreciate your help. Zach4636 23:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any policies forbidding external links that use Flash, especially if that site is official. Edmunds.com has a good article on the 599 as well. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will link to both but take out the other links. Zach4636 23:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Just saying thanks
Wanted to say "thank you" for your vandal patrolling, particularly of cowboy. Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU! Montanabw (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism help
Hi, just to let you know, an anonymous IP has been vandalizing the Lexus LS article, removing all references of the word "Ultra-luxury" when the references (#54 in particular) clearly supports that, and even cutting off sentences and title descriptions to do so. I have reverted this IP twice now. Thanks for any help stopping him. SynergyStar (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Links you consider Spam
Hi There: I received the following email below from you in regards to links you consider spam. In the 2-3 areas where links where placed. They were placed next to other companies with similar products. So I'm not sure why those companies should be listed with their links and we are able to list ours. I've read the policies. So, if you are deleting ours then you need to delete our competitors as well. If you aren't familiar with them I'd be more than happy to delete them personally.
 * Feel free to remove any links that violate link policies. However, please don't delete internal links to articles. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Old requests
In view of your many contributions to Music, please consider creating one or more of the requested articles at Articles_requested_for_more_than_a_year. Thanks. -- Jreferee    t / c  02:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

reply to talk
Dear Jamie, I appreciate your vigilance over the addition of links to wikipedia. I was quite unsure before as to how the additions are being controlled, but was relieved on receiving your notification. Accordingly, I have read the policies and rules to adding external links. So now I am a little more sure on the correct way to add links. Just to re-assure you on that end, I have been adding links to articles which were relevant to the main articles on wikipedia... you'd notice they are all links to articles on Indian or Asian art, and the articles that I am adding would most often be written by the famous art-historian Benoy K. Behl. I have not been doing this as promotional stuff for any commercial organization or for the art-hitorian or any other such personal interest. The links have been added by me, only for the purpose of relevant information that i think should be available to more people. I wish to pass on only valid information, and am stricly scared of misinformation. I trust wikipedia in that. Cheers! -Pooja —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poojakaul (talk • contribs) 12:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

hey
it says i can link to wikiclassifieds, and that is exactly what i was doing, and yet, you keep reverting my changes, why?

--Rymegkasri (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It means put your stuff on classifieds, not here. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL and Article to United States Permanent Resident Card
Hi Ohnoitsjamie, regarding your removal (diff)  of external resources from the mentioned article, please have a look at my detailed case for having a limited number of other resources included in this article at the moment. At least for the time being. If things change after the election to the better, those links could probably be removed. I agree with you in general, but I think it is a bad idea to do this at the current time and in this particular case though. Thanks for your time and consideration. --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 12:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

p.s. you have a very long and full talk page. I suggest to check out my modified version of the TALK PAGES archive template, which is optimized for user talk pages rather than generic to be used for any kind of talk pages. A simple to follow step-by-step guide to how to implement it was also provided. I hope you find this information useful. Cheers! --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk!</b> .oOo. 12:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Though your extensive contributions to Wikipedia are welcome, the links I removed (including yours) were all commercial (yours has quite a few advertisements, I should note). The immigration process may indeed be "broken," but it's not Wikipedia's job to "curate" the best "how-to" links, especially advert-heavy ones. Google in theory should give primacy to the most popular ones. I stand by my deletions. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Jamie, I responded to your comment on my user talk page at the articles talk page, because I believe that other editors might also have an opinion about this. See my post here. Thanks. --roy&lt;sac&gt; <b style="color:red;">Talk!</b> .oOo. 18:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Quick response at the talk page :). I posted a question for you. What would your assessment of the reference be as RS, if I remove ALL ads from the page entirely? As I stated repeatedly, the intent of the page is not commercial, so if this is the minor change needed to shift the consideration as RS in favor to be accepted as such, so be it. The actual content and background should speak for itself, but I have no problem with a compromise to avoid misconceptions and wrong interpretations of intentions. --roy&lt;sac&gt; <b style="color:red;">Talk!</b> .oOo. 19:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ads removed entirely. Comments added to discussion with focus on RS for the inclusion as "further resource" (and not as cited reference). --roy&lt;sac&gt; <b style="color:red;">Talk!</b> .oOo. 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I left a small comment at the articles talk page. I wanted to post the following there as well, but realized that it is a bit too much off topic and better be posted at your personal talk page.


 * Quote: "I'm always suspicious when an editor intent on including links to their own site." ... Suspicion and scrutinizing is good, complete rejection just because is not, as everything that is absolute without exceptions. You don't know me yet, which is fine. You will notice that I am a heavy content producer on and off Wikipedia. I write a lot about the things I know and/or care about. Virtually always is the material serving educational purposes. Some of my off Wikipedia writing is original research, but many of it isn't. I understand what Wikipedia's purpose is and what its not. Unlike many writers am I not very protective of my work and don't mind if it is used and altered/improved by others (I lack the ego for that I guess). My drive and motivation is the education of people and the preservation of information, which is not the same as opinionating people, because that would require a specific agenda and goal outside the information itself. Such agenda also tends to cause the suppression of non-favorable information for the sake of pushing a specific point of view. I don't like that. I want that people make up their own mind. In order to ensure that people can make educated decisions and form an opinion for themselves is it necessary to provide them with as much factual correct information as possible. The fun thing is that by doing what I do is that I continue to learn new things about stuff myself, which impact my opinions about a subject as well. Anyhow, I can write what I want here, but I guess the things I did and do will reinforce what I just said. You can see for yourself. I am pretty open about who I am and what I do so it is not hard to check for yourself, if I mean what I said or if I am just "full of crap" (figure of speech). Cheers! --roy&lt;sac&gt; <b style="color:red;">Talk!</b> .oOo. 12:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

My Facts
OMFG EMO!!!1!!!1! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.151.66 (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Dear user 'Ohnoitsjamie,'

I have written only a few things on Wikipedia.com and by the time I am able to merely check them, they are erased by you. Concerning the first article that I wrote, I immediately contacted the members who work for the Wikipedia webiste, because I have comments concerning some of their regulations. However, today I wrote a couple of sentences about domain names, in which a domainer, Andrew Miller, spoke to DNJournal about the selling of domain names. These sentences were cited and had no biases in them whatsoever. Why did you erase this, and why are you continuing to erase everything that I write on Wikipedia?

Please get back to me at your earliest convenience.

Kind Regards,

User Luvbug18Luvbug18 19:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because most of your contributions appears to be veiled advertisments for individuals or groups. Furthermore, the information from the edit in question is a bit out of date (2005). OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this. How can a reference be out of date? If it's a fact, which it is, then it's not out of date at all. If you choose to support your editing in this way, then all documents, including the Constitution and anything else written before 2007 is out of date. Additionally, I feel that if you think that I am marketing a certain individual or group, then please erase all names and corporate references because that too is marketing. If you looked at the website that I cited, you would see that everything I wrote was facts. Nothing was biased. Moreover, if you looked at the individuals that I referred to, then you would see that they deserve to be on Wikipedia. In fact, I would appreciate it if you would look up the individuals I spoke about, so that you would have knowledge of them and see that everything I wrote was true, instead of simply assuming that what I wrote is made up or not worthy of public knowledge.

Luvbug18 21:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear OhNoitsJamie,

I am anxiously awaiting a response to this. Can you please explain to me why some people/corporations are allowed to have facts about them on this website, and others are not. Although I already sent a letter to the CEO of Wikipedia about my concerns, I would like to know what your response is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luvbug18 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr Zapolin, please see our Conflict-of-interest policy. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am NOT Mr. Zapolin, however I am an enormous fan of his work and I admire both Mr. Zapolin and Mr. Miller because if you did research you would see that they are two brilliant men who deserve to be put on this website. I don't understand why you are having trouble with this. I have changed everything so that my work is cited, you see that everything I am writing is coming from outside sources. I feel like you have taken this too far, and that you are erasing people's work that they spend time on just to get your kicks. I am not accusing you of being a bad person, and I honestly do not want to have any problems with you because I am sure that you do feel very strongly about this website, and I respect you for that. With that said, I also get the feeling that you are starting to have a personal grudge against me and I am worried that you are trying to seek out my articles, simply to erase them. Internet real estate is a HUGE industry right now and it's only growing, especially since the Internet is considered to be the future of our nation's economy. Mr. Miller and Mr. Zapolin literally created the term 'internet real estate' and although YOU feel that my source is outdated, you can look them up on DNJournal's September 2005 issue where they held the cover story. In fact, let me give you the site DNJournal's Sept. 2005 Cover Issue. These two men have broken records regarding Internet real estate, and on top of that, they have worked with The Grateful Dead, Diana Ross, The New England Patriots, and Time Warner. Mr. Zapolin has co-written with Deepak Chopra, and became one of the youngest Vice Presidents (24-years-old) at the Investment Bank Bear Stearns in the 100+ years of the company's history. Mr. Zapolin and Mr. Miller each teach a class at Harvard Business School's Executive Program and Boston University's School of Communication, respectively, and they have gained more credibility to their names than most people regarding the development of the Internet. Moreover, Internet development is only one accomplishment they have on their resume; they were both VPs at Bear Stearns, and after leaving their positions there, they revolutionized television by creating Revenue Enhanced Programming, or REPs. They are both extremely accomplished, while maintaining a strong sense of community as seen by their need to donate time and money to various charities. Why shouldn't I be allowed to share their stories with the world? I look up to these two men because of their strong work ethic and innovative ideas; two qualities which have made them co-keynote speakers at the T.R.A.F.F.I.C. East conference October 18, 2005. If you don't believe me, then just look them up on Business Week, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Boston Business Journal, or really any major newspaper or business journal around.

Please get back to me once you've looked them up. Luvbug18 15:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a promotional tool (and also see WP:COI). Being affiliated with someone also counts as a conflict of interest.  If you're so dead-set on mentioning them (in the context of a two-year old quote), take it to the talk page of the article. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it wrong to mention pure facts about people? I am not saying that they are the best or even that their company is the best, I am merely mentioning the contributions that they have made. Luvbug18 16:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please take it to the talk page of the article in question. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

...
It wasn't my edit that was reverted... ?;{

--THIS IS CHARLES MANSON 00:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, I've been getting some flak over my name. Maybe I should change it to User:Ohnoit'sCharlesManson! ;)
 * I reverted your size change of the flag icon. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

...
Hi,

I would appreciate if you could explain why you removed my external link in the DDD article? Before I adding the link, I did checked the rules and also saw other equivalent solutions (e.g. Spring) are listed in external links. Is DDD only about Java and CLR and not include C++? Thanks! kjin101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjin101 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, similar, the extenal link to a whitepaper on how to use DSL for application modeling based on IoC framework is also removed from the the DSL article. I see Martin Fowler's DSL and workbanch article and Jebbrains links were there. I would very appreciate your could give me an explaination. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjin101 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When one user adds links to the same site to multiple articles, it suggests a possible conflict-of-interest problem. Regardless of whether Spring is "equivalent" is not so much the issue; Spring is quite notable. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explaination. The rule says there is such potential but not necessary to be the case for all such kind of links. As suggested by the rule, I would appreciate you could read the white paper and let me know whether it is truely a interest confict. Let me know if you have any questions. Also, the "plain old C++ object" description in DDD article is obviously not an interest conflict. Because it is the only link to a wiki article. Concept of domain objects should not be limited to Java and CLR. Please also let me know which rule I should look into in this case. Thanks again. kjin101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjin101 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

industrial robot
First: you wrote: I'm not sure I understand the confusion regarding leaving me messages. You can either click "Edit this page", scroll down and leave a message, or edit the last section header and make a new section. Most talk pages (user or article) use the convention of leaving new messages at the bottom. - well for some reason when I tried to edit it did not show the whole page so I thought you had some special arrangement. Must have been a glitch because it works ok now! Sorry to intrude. I have been maintaining industrial robot and put some of the content. I noticed you had removed a link in robot software by Kjin101 to some robot software development. I have no association with him/her so have no personal reaction but the link seemed ok to me. It was a novel new robot software development. What did you think was wrong with it? Robotics1 (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the links because that user was canvassing them to multiple articles, which made it appear that they were using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, but it didn't seem any worse than many other links and it seemed like a novel new software project. I was quite interested in it. Note: I have no axe to grind; just trying to understand the processes better. Robotics1 (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Who are you to block Stick Figures indefinitly? I'm asking a serious question. I was just messing round. That should not mean I shouldn't be able to edit ever again. Also I wanted to know why you and others spend time reverting vandalism? I really would like to know. Do you get paid for it? Please answer, I really want to know. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.4.169 (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I regularly block accounts indefinitely when it's clear they are being used for vandalism only. I don't get paid. I just enjoy keeping crap out of Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Giant Pandas, it's generally accepted that Pandas will eat just about anything. There's nothing inaccurate about listing doughnuts as part of a Giant Pandas diet. Doughnuts are of Chinese origin - fried dough is a commonly coupled with porridge, and you would be hard pressed to deny that a Giant Panda would pass up a warm bowl of porridge accompanied by doughnuts. In light of your threats, I will withdraw my scholarship on Giant Pandas from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvollebregt (talk • contribs) 21:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to check out Uncyclopedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

University of Wyoming
Please stop including Matthew Shepard from University of Wyoming. There is no consensus to include him, and the burden is on the proponent of information to show that it is accurate and conforms to wiki standards. By the way, who are you to post a warning on my talk page?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slyjackalope (talk • contribs) 01:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I posted a warning to your talk page because there is no consensus to omit his entry. Furthermore, you are incorrect regarding your "burden is on the proponent" statement. If you continue to remove content without regard to consensus, you will be blocked. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 01:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. Try to block me for keeping you from trashing my university's wiki page to further your agenda.  Do you have any authority to do this?  By the way, your little icon near the top of your page regarding your "strive[ing] to maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues" is laughable, as your obvious lack of neutrality on a controversial topic shows otherwise.  I am not the only editor who thinks that Matthew Shepard should not be included on the University of Wyoming wiki page, as evidenced by the numerous discussion postings on its talk page over the past several years.  Slyjackalope (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. Block me for following wiki standards, especially when I have shown that inclusion of this material is not permissible, and I'll be referring you to the Arbitration Committee for abusing your position as an "admin."  You are clearly not following wiki standards, especially those on Resolving disputes and Neutral point of view.  I have already suggested a means for resolving this dispute, namely that you refrain from including controversial material until you have a consenus with other "admins."  What have you suggested as a means to resolve this dispute?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slyjackalope (talk • contribs) 02:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How am I not following wiki standards? I fail to see how you've "shown that inclusion of this material is not permissible."  First you say "you'll keep adding the material until someone in authority tells you not too." Then it becomes "until there's a consensus with other admins." You're grasping at straws. There is indeed a discussion on the talk page to resolve the dispute, and the page shows a clear consensus for listing Shepard as an alumni. He is an alumni, and he's notable, whether you like it or not. Feel free to file another RFC on the matter; I doubt the consensus will change.  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 05:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-English ref
G'day Ohnoitsjamie! you removed what I wrote about the unique characteristics of Colorado and New Mexico's Spanish which I consider it's a good way to look inside their deep culture. I'm learning Spanish and if you want I can help you to understand the ref!! Well, anyway thanks for reverting me because you've made I signup here (despite I always liked it).--Knadaves (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I used a translation tool to check it out....looks fine to me. I was unaware that non-English refs were acceptable, and the site in question doesn't appear to be commercial. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 01:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Bwahahaha, experimentation
I noticed what a bad job I had done with your userpage so I tweaked it a bit. And then some more. I tried to maintain the same color scheme. I'd do the same to your talk page but I'm just checking in to see if you'd like anything else changed. And, of course, feel free to revert any changes I made if you don't like/want them. Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share?  05:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Golf Database
Unsure why my site has been removed has it has no commercial content and pertains specifically to the subject matter. I do understand that you are God in such matters but hope you attempt to be fair. Sad to say other links of lesser quality do contain adverts so I am baffled as to why I am excluded.

I simply ask that you reconsider and allow those keen on golf records to enjoy the benefits offered by my site. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miswod (talk • contribs) 10:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While there is no commercial content, there is also little or no information offered which is not already on Wikipedia (we already have complete listings of majors winners). If more content was there, such as round-by-round scores and complete results (every golfer, not just the winner), it may be different.  Lastly, the judgement of whether your site is helpful enough to include as a link is best done by other users, not yourself ;-)    It is entirely possible there are other links which should be removed as well; which ones in particular did you see?  These are added quite frequently and (like yours) are usually aggressively deleted.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So it wasn't deleted because of commercial content as I was informed - thought you lot were concerned with accuracy - no matter. The judgement of whether a site is helpful is down to each individual user and not just you. You only decide to deny users access to the site via wikipedia, obviously in a fairly arbitrary manner.

Which other sites? Thought that was your job. Too many other sites to list and you have completely missed the point of the site which offers a unique way of comparing major winners. You’re obviously too busy aggressively deleting links to actually notice the content on offer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miswod (talk • contribs) 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We're more concerned about good content at Wikipedia; it's an encyclopedia, not a directory of links. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh good; there was me thinking you were more concerned about users going of to more interesting sites! That's now three different reasons you have given for the deletion; any more to offer?
 * That's all I have to offer. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * :-) Please see policies on External links (especially items #1 and #4), and also WP:SPAM (especially item #5). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Shame I like a good debate, but it is difficult to argue with someone who doesn't see the need to connect the various statements made to support his case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.27.239 (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, but...
Thankyou, I have noticed you have reverted some idiots vandalism on wiki. However I noticed you also have a personal page on here, User:Ohnoitsjamie and this is against the rules of wiki? Any explination? It just seemed hypercritical.


 * 1)  "4. Please don't create pages about yourself or your friends, pages that advertise, or personal essays."


 * I think you need to spend a little bit more time reading about how Wikipedia works. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I understand the basics, professionals contribute where knowledge is acceptable, however it still clearly states the rule I quoted. This isn't a moan, I'm generally a bit confused on this one. So do you have a real explination, e.g. Explaining "How wiki works". Thankyou for replying so efficiently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosedmonkey (talk • contribs) 11:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:USER. Furthermore, I don't promote anything on my page, including my identity. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

False Information everywhere
68.38.15.69 is spamming false information about Serj Tankian on various pages. It has gone unnoticed for some time and thought I would contact an admin considering he has had 2 warnings about nonconstructive edits. I'll try to revert what he's done so far but I just thought I might let someone else know. Thanks! NTFS (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Not Everything on a "Blog" Site is Necessarily Blog Material
Regarding one of your recent deletions:

I guess that we just disagree on relevance. I will defer to your judgment. However, in the future, please consider that not every website with "blog" in its name is merely a daily personal missive about the writer's mood, the weather, their passionate love of Paris, and what they are planning to make for dinner. The "blog" page that I cited (www.survivalblog.com) is widely-read (with more than 52,000 weekly unique visitors in more than 50 countries) and is considered a technical reference by many shooting enthusiasts and preparedness-minded individuals. This blog's related static pages include several FAQs that LONG pre-date the advent of "blogs", and that even pre-date the Internet as we now know it. (Three of the FAQs authored by Rawles got their start on Usenet in the late 1980s, before "WWW" browsing was extant.)

IMHO, the static reference page in question--the reference page on whether or not certain types of ammunition are corrosively primed--provides valuable data for many shooters. But again, I am deferring to your judgment and won't attempt to re-post or argue this any further. Based on on your log, I can see that you have more experience about judging deletion criteria than I do. -- Jeff Trasel, 1604 EST, 23 Dec. 2007
 * I would've deleted all links to it if I thought that it was not notable. I just objected to it being canvassed to a large variety of articles. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas



 * Merry Christmas! :) Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share?  05:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Get Paid to website
Hello.

I got your message about the links "[Get Paid To website]". I wrote the article, and I based the information on it and the categories upon my website, |AllGPT. The link is relevant, as it provides a sample of websites listed on the page. Please reply, Lgolos (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OWN, WP:EL, and WP:COI. Please don't add the link again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Reason for removing the external link Four Schools of Chinese Cuisine on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_cuisine?
I'm curious about why you removed the above external link. It appears that the external site has very legitimate and helpful reference to the original article about Chinese Cuisine. It also looks like the external site is commercial free (compared with other existing external links full of commercials) and a wiki. Hopefully, you can take a deeper look and apply your judgement more judiciously. 63.166.226.83 (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The site does not appear to meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines. If you feel other links on that page are inappropriate, feel free to remove them. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * After spending some time checking the accuracy and fact, I found the article is a reliable source and a good complement to the current wp article. If you find anything on the article inaccurate and unreliable, please let everybody know, and we will happy to see it removed. For now I'm putting the link back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.64.4 (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of External link to Daily Dachund and Dog News
Hmmm. The Daily Dachshund and Dog News is indeed a blog but not a personal one. It's an aggregator that adds value. It covers Dachshund news, as it happens, and it is not, as an earlier Wikipedean suggested, just a Google feed. A cursory glance will show it has a lot to offer.

IN fact, this is the kind of news source that couldn't have existed before the web. And I think by removing the link you are depriving Dachshund lovers of a source of news they'd like. Instead of interpreting Wikipedia's rules in the most narrow minded way -- use of Flickr, Youtube and Ads do not automatically disqualify site nor does the fact that it's a blog -- why not ask yourself, "If I were someone looking for information on Dachshunds, would it help to know about this site?" If the answer is yes, please restore the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boisblaireau (talk • contribs) 00:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a link directory nor a vehicle for promoting sites with advertisements. 01:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is no rule that Wikipedia can't link sites with advertisements. Otherwise it couldn't link the New York Times or any other major publication. If the site in question meets link criteria, advertisements are irrelevant.

So, please expain the criteria for deletion of this link.

Also, it seems clear from this page, that your mission is deletion not assessing whether the link is suitable for inclusion in an ONLINe encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boisblaireau (talk • contribs) 11:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The New York Times is a notable, reliable source. Your blogs are neither. WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:COI explain the rationale sufficiently. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of External link
Dont you think you should just keep your business on wikipedia's matters related to dogs and cats??? you seems to be specialised in it.... you are not specialised in everything... please be humble, and let the world evolve without feeling you should have your word to say on every matters. your attitude will lead us backward. you are too conservative.... smells like censorship to me.... What a brave new world! And the worst part of it is that i like cats and Lynch too!!!
 * Please follow Wikipedia's policies. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Legible External Link?
Hi Jamie, You're a very efficient Wikipedia administrator. I just wanted to ask how i would attempt to get our website's artist interviews included in the external links of said artists? We're a small independent publisher aiming to spread the word about the artists we interview. You recently removed my attempts to link our video to relevant artists such as the Arcade Fire and Lil Jon. Both interviews are of a high quality and discuss information that is not included in the Wiki itself. I was under the impression that if our videos contain information that is not accessible in the wiki itself and are directly related to the artist they would therefore be valid under the Wikipedia guidelines.

Obviously we don't have the clout of someone such as a Rolling Stone (who are in the external links page of the arcade fire wiki) quite yet but i do feel that our content contributes to the environment and isn't purely about Spam - which we are also firmly against. Our website is www.pedestrian.tv and while there are some ads on the site - i feel that as the content of the interviews provides valuable insights that aren't available on the Wiki page the interviews may be allowable as external links?

If you have any tips on how we might be able to get our interviews incorporated into the external links of relevant Wikis i'd really appreciate the feedback.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswira (talk • contribs) 07:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle. If your site becomes notable enough, editors unaffiliated with your site will add the links independently. Please do not add links to your own site per WP:COI and WP:EL. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, creating new accounts and pretending to be an independent contributor does not work either. Further attempts to do so will result in immediate blocking per WP:SOCK policies. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL? WHY'D YOU REVERT THE PAGE "CHRISTIANITY"?!?!
 * I'll discuss the issue as soon as you fix your caps-lock key. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

All Caps Means shouting, idiot. and tell me why the fuck you reverted my edit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.7.1 (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the enlightenment. Vandalize or post abusive comments again, and you'll be blocked. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry,... Please tell me why you reverted my edit?
 * Because this is pretty obviously a point-of-view edit, which goes against Wikipedia policy. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Prove the information to be false. What suggest that Christ wasn't just a mentally ill man? Who's to say that their God isn't just a lame excuse for an imaginary friend? Well? Prove me wrong.
 * I'm not going to debate theology. Please don't make WP:POINT edits. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock of Deadrom
Just wanted to let you know, I undid your block here. It was a simple misunderstanding: this user wasn't spamming, he was fixing broken links. Mango juice talk 18:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the user was also adding new links to that site...looked like canvassing to me. I'm OK with the unblock, but I think they should be reblocked if they start canvassing again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Guess who came back to edit vandalize Cattle one more time. (Oh wait, did I just give it away in the header? BLAST!) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's kinda funny, actually. "Hey, whaddayknow, I'm not blocked yet!" OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

US THE dominant economic, political, cultural, and military force
Ohnoitsjamie, your undo makes the article factually incorrect. The source (ref 10) is mainly on imperrialism an military power, for which I kept the article saying 'the largest', so far we agree. But you cannot state that the US is THE dominant economic or cultural force. The EU is a larger economical force (source:wikipedia EU article). 'The dominant cultural force' is a subjective term since assigning a weight to cultural aspects is very viewpoint dependent. The US culture has significant global influence, but so do other cultures (that are much older and therefore survivable, an important measure of 'cultural strength'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhesselb (talk • contribs) 10:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Allaboutboygeorge
This user has sent an email to the unblock list acknowledging that they now understand our spam policies and requesting an unblock. I'm inclined to do so, but will keep a close eye on them. I wanted to let you know as a courtesy. - Philippe &#124; Talk 22:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine; I blocked them indef as they ignored talk messages and seemed to be a single purpose spam account. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have done exactly the same thing you did. I just hope this is a chance for a reform. :-)  - Philippe &#124; Talk 04:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Quizzing In India
Hi. As the guy who edited most of that article .. and as someone who has been involved in the Indian quizzing scene for over a decade now, (1) The O'Brien brothers (Derek, Barry and Andy) and their father Neil are very notable. Derek and Barry are regular TV quizmasters. There have been a lot of extra edits - apparently by Andrew Scolt, who currently works for the commercial quiz organization firm the O'Briens run - to add a lot of advertising content to the article about various O'Brien quizzes, I have largely reverted these over the past few months. However, removing their names, and those of Harsha Bhogle (who is a prominent TV commentator for cricket matches, and a regular quizmaster on sports themed quizzes) as non notable - you might want to reconsider that. Remove Andrew Scolt's name with my blessing - his dad Alban Scolt was notable as one of the earliest members of the quizzing scene in India, he isnt all that notable. srs (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the article has hardly any reliable source indicating such notability. In fact, the article has very few sources other than quiz websites. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 02:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets say it is catch 22. There is a very large, very active community that has been around for about 40+ years now, but the only mainstream "media" attention you might get is for TV quizzes or gameshows, quite a lot of which arent regarded as serious quizzing.. Derek O'Brien isnt respected as a quizzer or a good quizmaster to be frank, for all that he is notable. srs (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

various links from user JCSCEFA
I have spent the last 20 minutes trying to figure out how to "myTalk" I am not even sure if this is how to do it. I just saw the comments on the links and content I added on Friday and today. I am new to Wiki updates, and am sorry for the hassel. I see that you have deleted update where I added 'closed-end funds' to the 'exchange-traded funds' when CEFs are the investment company structure that ETFs were formed from. I will work to stay inside the guide lines of Wiki, George Scott, who has co-authored the only hard back book, (500 pages) on CEFS and it is used in gradute level finance classes, "Investing in CEFs: Finding Value and Building Wealth" is the editior and publisher of The Scott Letter, in print 1988-1996 and online since 2001. The newsletter is very well read and endourced by the industry. It has interviews with CEF fund managers and other pertinent articles. The only "marketing-esk notation" on the back page above our logo it simply says that we do mange money in 4 styles. (and it lists them). The Closed-End Fund Forum, is run by Capital Link, which is a shareholder relations comapany. They are private and In it to make money - how are we different. The reason I added the links to our website, is we do offer a valuable primary info service, which does expose people to our company. George was first a journalist and then a invemtment manager. Meybe the link needs to be reworded - in regrds to our links, I want people to know there is this information avialable to help them learn about the funds. In regards to the info I added on the ETF, MF, REIT and CEF pages that didnt 'pomote our newsletter or website' I believe the bulk of it was valuable. I do understand that being new I have some to learn. I am not one for spamming. It is a fact that there are two private firms (w/ websites) that are the "CEF Gurus". Tom Herzfeld in Miami, and us in Richmond, Va. The CEF association is also a great resource (and we have worked closley with them since their formation.) In conclusion, I will be more careful on what I type, but I feel the editor(s) have been a little overreaching in deleting worthwhile content and info. Thank you for your understanding.- John Cole Scott, CFS - (800) 356-3508 or jcs@cefadvisors.com.
 * Please refer to Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

External Link to Dinosaur matrix from user ToSoft
http://www.dinofun.com/database/dinosaurdatabase.html

So Jamie, what is wrong with the edit that I added? There is no advertising and I spent a lot of time developing the page that the link points too. I believe that there is very informative material at that link.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tosoft" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tosoft (talk • contribs) 18:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You've been warned about adding links to your own site numerous times. If you'd like to contribute to Wikipedia, try contributing contents, not links. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd stop by to say...
...great name. Made me smile! gb (t, c) 20:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Friends typically acknowledge that it's appropriate enough. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

mexico
Hi Jamie

You beat me to it.

Purplepickle10 works on the edge of plausibility, making it more of a challenge. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Links
NOTE: I don't think I'm doing this right...my comment became a link on your page. Help! :)

Hi.. I think I'm doing this right. Quick question - if a site has been written up in many papers and is a leading site in it's industry, but the site itself cannot write it's own page.. how the heck is a page going to be formed? :) Do we ask our members to write up a page on our behalf? Do we have to wait until someone gets around to it? Will the polar ice caps melt away and we pass the 1M member mark until we're finally added to the simple list called social networks? We have countless press clippings on our site, so we're a bit confused. If you could lend us some help or assistance that would be great. Thanks for listening.
 * Creating an article about your own site is discouraged per WP:COI, though I'm sure there are many articles on Wikipedia about sites/companies that were created by someone involved with the site/company. That said, I wasn't able to find any "press clippings."  (News releases or other articles written by Bakespace do not qualify). Thanks, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 04:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Stencil graffiti
Hello Jamie,

Regarding the removal of an external link at Stencil_graffiti. What is the difference between the already added links and the link I added today? I read the guidelines and by those same guidelines all the other external links should be removed as well. It's not my site, so it can't be considered as spam. I just thought it would add to the content.

Yours, Checkthewrapper
 * Feel free to remove other links that you feel violate the policy. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I noticed you removed the other links as well. Everything clear. Thank you for pointing this out. Cheers, - Checkthewrapper —Preceding comment was added at 09:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)